External Validation of the PREdiction of Survival on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy (PRESET) Score: A Single Center Cohort Experience.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition affecting >10% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients worldwide with a mortality of up to 59% depending on severity. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a potentially life-saving procedure in severe ARDS but is technically and financially challenging. In recent years, various scoring systems have been proposed to select patients most likely to benefit from ECMO, with the PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy (PRESET) score being one of the most used. We collected data from 283 patients with ARDS of various etiology who underwent veno-venous (V-V) ECMO therapy at a German tertiary care ICU from January 2012 to December 2022. Median age in the cohort was 56 years, and 64.31% were males. The in-hospital mortality rate was 50.88% (n = 144). The median (25%; 75% quartile) severity scores were 38 (31; 49) for Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, 12 (10; 13) for Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and 7 (5; 8) for PRESET. Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II displayed the best prognostic value (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC]: 0.665 [confidence interval (CI): 0.574-0.756; p = 0.046]). Prediction performance was weak in all analyzed scores despite good calibration. Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II had the best discrimination after adjustment of our original cohort. The use of scores explored in this study for patient selection for eligibility for V-V ECMO is not recommendable.

High-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy during refractory COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Current COVID-19 guidelines recommend the early use of systemic corticoids for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It remains unknown if high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy (MPT) ameliorates refractory COVID-19 ARDS after many days of mechanical ventilation or rapid deterioration with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study. Consecutive patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated with a parenteral high-dose methylprednisolone pulse therapy at the intensive care units (ICU) of two University Hospitals between January 1st 2021 and November 30st 2022 were included. Clinical data collection was at ICU admission, start of MPT, 3-, 10- and 14-days post MPT. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (mean age 55 ± 12 years) were included in the study. MPT started at a mean of 17 ± 12 days after mechanical ventilation. Nineteen patients (54%) received ECMO support when commencing MPT. Mean paO2/FiO2 significantly improved 3- (p = 0.034) and 10 days (p = 0.0313) post MPT. The same applied to the necessary FiO2 10 days after MPT (p = 0.0240). There were no serious infectious complications. Twenty-four patients (65%) survived to ICU discharge, including 13 out of 20 (65%) needing ECMO support. CONCLUSIONS: Late administration of high-dose MPT in a critical subset of refractory COVID-19 ARDS patients improved respiratory function and was associated with a higher-than-expected survival of 65%. These data suggest that high-dose MPT may be a viable salvage therapy in refractory COVID-19 ARDS.

Transfer of Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients With COVID-19 Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Interhospital transport of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients bears transport-associated risks. It is unknown how interhospital extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) transfer of COVID-19 patients by mobile ECMO units affects ARDS mortality. We compared the outcome of 94 COVID-19 patients cannulated in primary care hospitals and retrieved by mobile ECMO-teams to that of 84 patients cannulated at five German ECMO centers. Patients were recruited from March 2020 to November 2021. Twenty-six transports were airborne, 68 were land-based. Age, sex, body-mass-index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, days invasively ventilated, and P/F-Ratio before ECMO initiation were similar in both groups. Counting only regional transports (≤250 km), mean transport distance was 139.5 km ± 17.7 km for helicopter (duration 52.5 ± 10.6 minutes) and 69.8 km ± 44.1 km for ambulance or mobile intensive care unit (duration 57.6 ± 29.4 minutes). Overall time of vvECMO support (20.4 ± 15.2 ECMO days for transported patients vs. 21.0 ± 20.5 for control, p = 0.83) and days invasively ventilated (27.9 ± 18.1 days vs. 32.6 ± 25.1 days, p = 0.16) were similar. Overall mortality did not differ between transported patients and controls (57/94 [61%] vs. 51/83 [61%], p = 0.43). COVID-19 patients cannulated and retrieved by mobile ECMO-teams have no excess risk compared with patients receiving vvECMO at experienced ECMO centers. Patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS, limited comorbidities, and no contraindication for ECMO should be referred early to local ECMO centers.

[Interhospital critical care transport]. / Interhospitaler Intensivtransport.

Critically ill patients in need of specialized diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, but are being cared for in a hospital without such equipment, have to be transferred to appropriate centers without discontinuation of current critical care (interhospital critical care transfer). These transfers are resource intensive, challenging, and require high logistical effort, which must be managed by a specialized and highly trained team, predeployment planning and efficient crew-resource management strategies. If planned adequately, interhospital critical care transfers can be performed safely without frequent adverse events. Beside routine interhospital critical care transfers, there are special missions (e.g., for patients in quarantine or supported by extracorporeal organ support) that might require adaption of the team composition or standard equipment. This article describes interhospital critical care transport missions including their different phases and special circumstances.

[Interhospital critical care transport]. / Interhospitaler Intensivtransport.

Critically ill patients in need of specialized diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, but are being cared for in a hospital without such equipment, have to be transferred to appropriate centers without discontinuation of current critical care (interhospital critical care transfer). These transfers are resource intensive, challenging, and require high logistical effort, which must be managed by a specialized and highly trained team, predeployment planning and efficient crew-resource management strategies. If planned adequately, interhospital critical care transfers can be performed safely without frequent adverse events. Beside routine interhospital critical care transfers, there are special missions (e.g., for patients in quarantine or supported by extracorporeal organ support) that might require adaption of the team composition or standard equipment. This article describes interhospital critical care transport missions including their different phases and special circumstances.