Hemorrhage, Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy, and Thrombosis Complications Among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: An International COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and outcomes associated with hemorrhage, disseminated intravascular coagulopathy, and thrombosis (HECTOR) complications in ICU patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Two hundred twenty-nine ICUs across 32 countries. PATIENTS: Adult patients (≥ 16 yr) admitted to participating ICUs for severe COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: HECTOR complications occurred in 1,732 of 11,969 study eligible patients (14%). Acute thrombosis occurred in 1,249 patients (10%), including 712 (57%) with pulmonary embolism, 413 (33%) with myocardial ischemia, 93 (7.4%) with deep vein thrombosis, and 49 (3.9%) with ischemic strokes. Hemorrhagic complications were reported in 579 patients (4.8%), including 276 (48%) with gastrointestinal hemorrhage, 83 (14%) with hemorrhagic stroke, 77 (13%) with pulmonary hemorrhage, and 68 (12%) with hemorrhage associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannula site. Disseminated intravascular coagulation occurred in 11 patients (0.09%). Univariate analysis showed that diabetes, cardiac and kidney diseases, and ECMO use were risk factors for HECTOR. Among survivors, ICU stay was longer (median days 19 vs 12; p < 0.001) for patients with versus without HECTOR, but the hazard of ICU mortality was similar (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.92-1.12; p = 0.784) overall, although this hazard was identified when non-ECMO patients were considered (HR 1.13; 95% CI 1.02-1.25; p = 0.015). Hemorrhagic complications were associated with an increased hazard of ICU mortality compared to patients without HECTOR complications (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.45; p = 0.002), whereas thrombosis complications were associated with reduced hazard (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.99, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: HECTOR events are frequent complications of severe COVID-19 in ICU patients. Patients receiving ECMO are at particular risk of hemorrhagic complications. Hemorrhagic, but not thrombotic complications, are associated with increased ICU mortality.

Morbid obesity's impact on COVID-19 patients requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: The covid-19 critical care consortium database review.

Introduction: Obesity is associated with a worse prognosis in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Veno-venous (V-V) Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) can be a rescue option, however, the direct impact of morbid obesity in this select group of patients remains unclear.Methods: This is an observational study of critically ill adults with COVID-19 and ARDS supported by V-V ECMO. Data are from 82 institutions participating in the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium international registry. Patients were admitted between 12 January 2020 to 27 April 2021. They were stratified based on Body Mass Index (BMI) at 40 kg/m2. The endpoint was survival to hospital discharge.Results: Complete data available on 354 of 401 patients supported on V-V ECMO. The characteristics of the high BMI (>40 kg/m2) and lower BMI (≤40 kg/m2) groups were statistically similar. However, the 'high BMI' group were comparatively younger and had a lower APACHE II score. Using survival analysis, older age (Hazard Ratio, HR 1.49 per-10-years, CI 1.25-1.79) and higher BMI (HR 1.15 per-5 kg/m2 increase, CI 1.03-1.28) were associated with a decreased patient survival. A safe BMI threshold above which V-V ECMO would be prohibitive was not apparent and instead, the risk of an adverse outcome increased linearly with BMI.Conclusion: In COVID-19 patients with severe ARDS who require V-V ECMO, there is an increased risk of death associated with age and BMI. The risk is linear and there is no BMI threshold beyond which the risk for death greatly increases.

Burnout among Respiratory Therapists and Perception of Leadership: A Cross Sectional Survey Over Eight Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: Burnout syndrome (BOS) is a job-related stress disorder featured by three main cardinal manifestations: emotional exhaustion (EE), reduced personal accomplishment (PA), and depersonalization (DP). AIM: We aimed to report the prevalence of burnout and the impact of leadership and work condition on the burnout among respiratory therapists (RT) are front-line practitioners in many critical settings. METHODS: We surveyed RT in eight intensive care units (ICU) at five tertiary hospitals, under one medical corporation, using three instruments: the Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel, Condition of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (CWEQ), and Leadership behaviours scale. We used a group of other health care practitioners (ie, physicians and nurses) as the control group. RESULTS: Of a sampling frame of 1222 ICU practitioners, 445 (36.4%) responded with completed surveys. Eighty-four (17.3%) and 361 (82.7%) participants were in the RT and the control group, respectively. The overall burnout score was significantly lower in the RT group (53.6% vs. 67%, p = 0.02). The EE and DP scores were significantly lower in the RT group [(26.2% vs. 37.7, p = 0.048) and (9.5% vs. 19.9%, p = 0.025), respectively], but the PA score did not show significant difference between the groups. A significant negative relationship was found between CWEQ score and both EE and DP scores (rs = -0. 0.557, p < 0.001) and (rs = -0.372, p < 0.001), respectively, while a significant positive correlation was found between CWEQ and the PA score (rs = 0.225, p < 0.042). A significant negative relationship was found between the leadership attitude and EE scores (rs = -0.414, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest a high burnout rate among RT. The reported rate was significantly correlated to work conditions and leadership behaviours. Organizational efforts should be directed to combating burnout through the identification and adequate management of the key precipitating factors. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04620005.

Impact of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Service on Burnout Development in Eight Intensive Care Units. A National Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at investigating the effects of an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) service on Burnout syndrome (BOS) development in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: The authors conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTINGS: Eight ICUs within 5 tertiary hospitals in 1 country. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care practitioners (nurses, physicians, and respiratory therapists). INTERVENTION: Using an online questionnaire, the Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel. In addition, demographic variables, workload, salary satisfaction, and caring for COVID-19 patients were assessed. Participants were divided based on working in an ICU with ECMO (ECMO-ICU) and without (non-ECMO-ICU) ECMO service, and burnout status (burnout and no burnout). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The response rate for completing the questionnaire was 36.4% (445/1,222). Male patients represented 53.7% of the participants. The overall prevalence of burnout was 64.5%. The overall burnout prevalence did not differ between ECMO- and non-ECMO-ICU groups (64.5% and 63.7, respectively). However, personal accomplishment (PA) score was significantly lower among ECMO-ICU personnel compared with those in a non-ECMO-ICU (42.7% v 52.6, p = 0.043). Significant predictors of burnout included profession (nurse or physician), acquiring COVID-19 infection, knowing other practitioners who were infected with COVID-19, salary dissatisfaction, and extremes of workload. CONCLUSION: Burnout was equally prevalent among participants from ECMO- and non-ECMO-ICU, but PA was lower among participants in the ICU with an ECMO service. The reported high prevalence of burnout, and its predictors, requires special attention to try to reduce its occurrence.

Transport and Retrieval on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO): Setup and Activities of an Immersive Transport and Retrieval on ECMO Workshop.

Extracorporeal life support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are widely used for acute severe refractory cardiac and respiratory failure. An increasing number of patients are treated with ECMO worldwide. This can be attributed to technical and technologic advancements, easier access to modern equipment, and more regular and accessible training opportunities for practitioners to maintain current skills and develop new ones. Typically, ECMO is provided at tertiary or regional centers that often are university- affiliated. In a significant number of patients, ECMO may be initiated at a peripheral hospital before they are transported to a tertiary facility by a specialized multiprofessional ECMO team. The transport phase is, however, fraught with challenges and untoward events are not uncommon during ECMO transportation, so a robust education and training program is critical to ensure patient safety and optimum outcome. This article describes the authors' experience of developing and running a simulation-based ECMO Transport and Retrieval workshop, with multiple immersive scenarios and opportunities for participants to familiarize themselves with the process and the ambulance equipment and environment. Preparation is a key element to successfully run scenarios that are technically challenging to facilitate due to the environment and equipment involved. To date, 136 multidisciplinary ECMO providers have attended the workshop and no incidents have been reported by the authors' teams during actual transfers and retrieval missions with patients on ECMO.

Sepsis Care Pathway 2019.

Background: Sepsis, a medical emergency and life-threatening disorder, results from abnormal host response to infection that leads to acute organ dysfunction1. Sepsis is a major killer across all ages and countries and remains the most common cause of admission and death in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU)2. The true incidence remains elusive and estimates of the global burden of sepsis remain a wild guess. One study suggested over 19 million cases and 5 million sepsis-related deaths annually3. Addressing the challenge, the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organisation (WHO) passed a resolution on better prevention, diagnosis, and management of sepsis4. Current state of sepsis guidelines: Despite thousands of articles and hundreds of trials, sepsis remains a major killer. The cornerstones of sepsis care remain early recognition, adoption of a systematic evidence-based bundle of care, and timely escalation to higher level of care. The bundle approach has been advocated since 2004 but underwent major modifications in subsequent years with more emphasis on the time-critical nature of sepsis and need to restore physiological variables within one hour of recognition. A shift from a three and six-hour bundle to one-hour bundle has been recommended5. This single hour approach has been faced with an outcry and been challenged6-8. One size never fits all: Over several decades, the individual components of the sepsis bundle have not changed. Encountering a patient with suspected sepsis, one should measure lactate, obtain blood cultures, swiftly administer broad spectrum antimicrobials and fluids, and infuse vasopressors. A critical question arises: should we do this for all patients? Sepsis is not septic shock and guidelines did not make distinctive recommendations for each. Septic patients will present differently with some having more subtle signs and symptoms. Phenotypically, we do not know which patient with infection will develop a dysregulated host response and will succumb to sepsis and/or shock6-8. The existing bundle lacks high quality evidence to support its recommendations and a blanket implementation for all patients with 'suspected' sepsis could be harmful7. Indeed, a significant reduction of sepsis and septic shock in Australia and New Zealand was observed in a bundle-free region8. Emergency Department (ED) challenges: Upon arrival in the ED, patients will be triaged. This is 'time zero'5. Those with hypotension and hypoperfusion will be easily recognised and at most need to receive emergent care. Sepsis, per se, may not manifest clear cut signs and expertise to identify it is required. Those with non-specific symptoms may trigger an early warning scoring system and receive unnecessary antimicrobials and a large volume of intravenous (IV) fluids. Both therapies are not without significant side effects. Putting pressure on ED physicians to implement the 60-minute bundle without individualisation of care puts our patients at risk6-8. Diagnostic challenges: Given the heterogenous nature and diverse pathobiological pathways, sepsis diagnosis can be challenging and both over and under-treatment can result. Established biomarkers such as procalcitonin and C-reactive protein lack specificity to rule out infection as the cause of inflammation. Currently, no laboratory test or biomarker helps predict which patients with infection or inflammation will develop organ dysfunction. A dire need for a specific sepsis biomarker exists10. Modern molecular-based technologies are evolving and utilise polymerase chain reaction (PCR), nanotechnology, and microfluidics for point-of-care testing. Some devices identify causative microorganisms and their sensitivity in less than an hour10. The bundle components: Catecholamines along with IV fluids are indicated to restore perfusion. However, inadvertent side effects may arise, especially at higher doses. Anti-adrenergic ß-blockers improve cardiac performance, enhance receptor responsiveness, and possess anti-inflammatory action. All are desirable in patients with septic shock11. One randomised trial showed beneficial and protective effects of ß-blockers in septic shock. Rapidly acting titratable agents should be used in conjunction with appropriate hemodynamic monitoring and after adequate volume resuscitation. There is no consensus on target heart rate but an arbitrary cut off of 80-95 beats per minute is reasonable11. Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis management. There is also compelling evidence that too much fluid is bad. Starch-based colloids should not be used in septic shock. Albumin is an alternative when large volumes are required but is not appropriate in traumatic brain injury. Balanced, less chloride and less acidic crystalloids are safer for the kidneys and are preferred over normal saline. Doses of IV fluids should be tailored to the patient's condition and a 30 ml/kg recommendation should be reviewed.12 Effective sepsis management requires adequate dosing of antimicrobials. Significant alteration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics is characteristic of septic shock13. Accurate and effective dosing is challenging particularly in patients with multiple comorbidities and those receiving extracorporeal organ support. Underdosing results in treatment failure, whilst overdosing leads to toxicity and the risk of developing multi-drug resistant organisms13. An individualised approach supported by therapeutic drug monitoring is suggested to ensure clinical efficacy13. Sepsis research: The search for a cure for sepsis is ongoing. A large prospective, randomised two-arm, parallel group study aims to recruit over 200 patients with septic shock across critical care units in Qatar. Evaluation of Hydrocortisone, Vitamin C, and Thiamine (HYVITS) examines the safety and efficacy of this triple therapy14. Sepsis in the young patient: Children are particularly vulnerable to sepsis. 1 in 6 children admitted with septic shock to ICU will die. As the majority of paediatric sepsis cases are community acquired, there is a strong need to raise awareness both for families and primary healthcare providers. Akin to adults, a bundle-approach to paediatric sepsis is strongly encouraged. National programs for paediatric sepsis have been established15. The Qatar paediatric multidisciplinary sepsis program was established under the umbrella of the adult programme in 2017. A structured and standardised approach to sepsis across all neonate and paediatric facilities has been developed and implemented. Improvement in timely sepsis recognition and administration of antimicrobials within the golden hour has been observed. The program aims to achieve a 95% compliance to the paediatric sepsis bundle by the end of 2019. A screening tool and order set have been put in place and are presented in this special issue of Qatar Medical Journal16,17. Obstetric sepsis: Pregnancy and childbirth are risk factors for sepsis. Multi-organ failure and death can result from puerperal sepsis18. Sepsis is the direct and leading cause of maternal mortality in the UK19. Attention to maternal sepsis with a tailored approach is encouraged. The Qatar National Sepsis Program developed a sepsis care pathway for pregnant women and during their early post-partum period. Challenges in low socioeconomic societies: A broader, national -or better yet- a global approach to further sepsis management and outcome should be considered. There are a number of significant challenges to address. One such challenge is the inconsistency of the operational definition and diagnostic approaches for sepsis including coding and documentation1,3. Significant deficiencies in healthcare systems have been highlighted by sepsis. This is most obvious in medium- and low-income countries. A major limitation to effective sepsis management is inadequate medical staffing and poor knowledge and awareness of sepsis. Both have a negative impact on sepsis outcome3. Poor medical facilities in many countries pose significant challenges to sepsis care. Lack of critical care capacity - a global phenomenon - has been linked to poor outcome of sepsis cases and septic shock. This could be attributed to provision of suboptimal critical care, monitoring and critical interventions outside of the ICU. ICU availability is subject to inconsistency and inequity.2,3 Lack of adequate surgical capacity to accomplish timely source control adversely affects sepsis management. This, unfortunately, in medium- and low-income countries, is accompanied by inadequate medical supplies, diagnostic capacity, and manpower which increases sepsis mortality and morbidity3. Global concerns: Antimicrobials are critical for sepsis care. A global concern is the development of multi-drug resistant organisms and the lack of novel antimicrobials and this adds pressure on those caring for septic patients. Effective antimicrobials should be utilised to eradicate infections. Misuse, inadequacy, inferior agents, and lack of timely access to effective and affordable agents significantly hinders patient's recovery from sepsis2,3. Optimum sepsis outcome mandates attention to acute sepsis complications (e.g. acute renal or respiratory failure) as well as addressing post-discharge complications and disability. These challenging issues remain poorly studied or addressed3. Conclusion: Sepsis and septic shock are major global health concerns. Progress has been achieved in understanding this life-threatening syndrome at a biological, metabolic, and cellular level. Efforts should be coordinated to improve sepsis care. Better and more accurate diagnostics are needed and governments are encouraged to invest in sepsis research and care. More integrated, inclusive, and focused research is desperately needed. Public education and increased awareness among primary healthcare providers are also critical to improve sepsis outcome.

Addressing the challenges of ECMO simulation.

INTRODUCTION/AIM: The patient's condition and high-risk nature of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy force clinical services to ensure clinicians are properly trained and always ready to deal effectively with critical situations. Simulation-based education (SBE), from the simplest approaches to the most immersive modalities, helps promote optimum individual and team performance. The risks of SBE are negative learning, inauthenticity in learning and over-reliance on the participants' suspension of disbelief. This is especially relevant to ECMO SBE as circuit/patient interactions are difficult to fully simulate without confusing circuit alterations. METHODS: Our efforts concentrate on making ECMO simulation easier and more realistic in order to reduce the current gap there is between SBE and real ECMO patient care. Issues to be overcome include controlling the circuit pressures, system failures, patient issues, blood colour and cost factors. Key to our developments are the hospital-university collaboration and research funding. RESULTS: A prototype ECMO simulator has been developed that allows for realistic ECMO SBE. The system emulates the ECMO machine interface with remotely controllable pressure parameters, haemorrhaging, line chattering, air bubble noise and simulated blood colour change. CONCLUSION: The prototype simulator allows the simulation of common ECMO emergencies through innovative solutions that enhance the fidelity of ECMO SBE and reduce the requirement for suspension of disbelief from participants. Future developments will encompass the patient cannulation aspect.

Hemorrhage and thrombosis in COVID-19-patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an international study based on the COVID-19 critical care consortium.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rescue therapy in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19. While bleeding and thrombosis complicate ECMO, these events may also occur secondary to COVID-19. Data regarding bleeding and thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients on ECMO are sparse. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium database, we conducted a retrospective analysis on adult patients with severe COVID-19 requiring ECMO, including centers globally from 01/2020 to 06/2022, to determine the risk of ICU mortality associated with the occurrence of bleeding and clotting disorders. RESULTS: Among 1,248 COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO support in the registry, coagulation complications were reported in 469 cases (38%), among whom 252 (54%) experienced hemorrhagic complications, 165 (35%) thrombotic complications, and 52 (11%) both. The hazard ratio (HR) for Intensive Care Unit mortality was higher in those with hemorrhagic-only complications than those with neither complication (adjusted HR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.28-1.99, p < 0.001). Death was reported in 617 of the 1248 (49.4%) with multiorgan failure (n = 257 of 617 [42%]), followed by respiratory failure (n = 130 of 617 [21%]) and septic shock [n = 55 of 617 (8.9%)] the leading causes. CONCLUSIONS: Coagulation disorders are frequent in COVID-19 ARDS patients receiving ECMO. Bleeding events contribute substantially to mortality in this cohort. However, this risk may be lower than previously reported in single-nation studies or early case reports. Trial registration ACTRN12620000421932 ( https://covid19.cochrane.org/studies/crs-13513201 ).

Risk of COVID-19 infection among mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation team.

Background and Aim: The transport of coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a challenging situation, especially for healthcare workers (HCWs), due to the risk of cross-infection. Hence, certain precautions are needed for their safety. The study aims to evaluate the risk of COVID-19 transmission to HCWs who transport COVID-19 patients on ECMO device. Methods: A retrospective review of adult patients with COVID-19 infection supported with ECMO and transported by ground route to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) at Hamad General Hospital (HGH) and a survey of HCWs involved in those cases. Results: A total of 63 HCWs of the mobile ECMO team were exposed to COVID-19-positive patients on 199 occasions. HCWs exposure time was nearly 110 h, and the total transport distance was 1018 km. During the study period, only two of the mobile ECMO HCWs tested positive for COVID-19. There was zero incidence of transfer-associated injuries or accidents to HCWs. Conclusions: The risk of COVID-19 cross-infection to the mobile ECMO team seems to be very low, provided that strict infection prevention and control measures are applied.

Expert consensus statement on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO for COVID-19 severe ARDS: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The high-quality evidence on managing COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is insufficient. Furthermore, there is little consensus on allocating ECMO resources when scarce. The paucity of evidence and the need for guidance on controversial topics required an international expert consensus statement to understand the role of ECMO in COVID-19 better. Twenty-two international ECMO experts worldwide work together to interpret the most recent findings of the evolving published research, statement formulation, and voting to achieve consensus. OBJECTIVES: To guide the next generation of ECMO practitioners during future pandemics on tackling controversial topics pertaining to using ECMO for patients with COVID-19-related severe ARDS. METHODS: The scientific committee was assembled of five chairpersons with more than 5 years of ECMO experience and a critical care background. Their roles were modifying and restructuring the panel's questions and, assisting with statement formulation in addition to expert composition and literature review. Experts are identified based on their clinical experience with ECMO (minimum of 5 years) and previous academic activity on a global scale, with a focus on diversity in gender, geography, area of expertise, and level of seniority. We used the modified Delphi technique rounds and the nominal group technique (NGT) through three face-to-face meetings and the voting on the statement was conducted anonymously. The entire process was planned to be carried out in five phases: identifying the gap of knowledge, validation, statement formulation, voting, and drafting, respectively. RESULTS: In phase I, the scientific committee obtained 52 questions on controversial topics in ECMO for COVID-19, further reviewed for duplication and redundancy in phase II, resulting in nine domains with 32 questions with a validation rate exceeding 75% (Fig. 1). In phase III, 25 questions were used to formulate 14 statements, and six questions achieved no consensus on the statements. In phase IV, two voting rounds resulted in 14 statements that reached a consensus are included in four domains which are: patient selection, ECMO clinical management, operational and logistics management, and ethics. CONCLUSION: Three years after the onset of COVID-19, our understanding of the role of ECMO has evolved. However, it is incomplete. Tota14 statements achieved consensus; included in four domains discussing patient selection, clinical ECMO management, operational and logistic ECMO management and ethics to guide next-generation ECMO providers during future pandemic situations.

Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Guideline for Transport and Retrieval of Adult and Pediatric Patients with ECMO Support.

DISCLAIMER: This guideline for the preparation for and undertaking of transport and retrieval of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is intended for educational use to build the knowledge of physicians and other health professionals in assessing the conditions and managing the treatment of patients undergoing ECLS / ECMO and describe what are believed to be useful and safe practice for extracorporeal life support (ECLS, ECMO) but these are not necessarily consensus recommendations. The aim of clinical guidelines are to help clinicians to make informed decisions about their patients. However, adherence to a guideline does not guarantee a successful outcome. Ultimately, healthcare professionals must make their own treatment decisions about care on a case-by-case basis, after consultation with their patients, using their clinical judgement, knowledge and expertise. These guidelines do not take the place of physicians' and other health professionals' judgment in diagnosing and treatment of particular patients. These guidelines are not intended to and should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment must be made by the physician and other health professionals and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient, and the known variability and biological behavior of the clinical condition. These guidelines reflect the data at the time the guidelines were prepared; the results of subsequent studies or other information may cause revisions to the recommendations in these guidelines to be prudent to reflect new data, but ELSO is under no obligation to provide updates. In no event will ELSO be liable for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided through these guidelines.

Mobile Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Covid-19 Does Not Pose Extra Risk to Transport Team.

Previous experience has shown that transporting patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a safe and effective mode of transferring critically ill patients requiring maximum mechanical ventilator support to a quaternary care center. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic posed new challenges. This is a multicenter, retrospective study of 113 patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, cannulated at an outside hospital and transported on ECMO to an ECMO center. This was performed by a multidisciplinary mobile ECMO team consisting of physicians for cannulation, critical care nurses, and an ECMO specialist or perfusionist, along with a driver or pilot. Teams practised strict airborne contact precautions with eyewear while caring for the patient and were in standard Personal Protective Equipment. The primary mode of transportation was ground. Ten patients were transported by air. The average distance traveled was 40 miles (SD ±56). The average duration of transport was 133 minutes (SD ±92). When stratified by mode of transport, the average distance traveled for ground transports was 36 miles (SD ±52) and duration was 136 minutes (SD ±93). For air, the average distance traveled was 66 miles (SD ±82) and duration was 104 minutes (SD ±70). There were no instances of transport-related adverse events including pump failures, cannulation complications at outside hospital, or accidental decannulations or dislodgements in transit. There were no instances of the transport team members contracting COVID-19 infection within 21 days after transport. By adhering to best practices and ACE precautions, patients with COVID-19 can be safely cannulated at an outside hospital and transported to a quaternary care center without increased risk to the transport team.