Mortality Risk Assessment in COVID-19 Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: A life-threatening complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) refractory to conventional management. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (VV-ECMO) is used to support patients with ARDS in whom conventional management fails. Scoring systems to predict mortality in VV-ECMO remain unvalidated in COVID-19 ARDS. This report describes a large single-center experience with VV-ECMO in COVID-19 and assesses the utility of standard risk calculators. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients with COVID-19 who underwent VV-ECMO cannulation between March 15 and June 27, 2020 at a single academic center was performed. Demographic, clinical, and ECMO characteristics were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; survivor and nonsurvivor cohorts were compared by using univariate and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Forty patients who had COVID-19 and underwent ECMO were identified. Of the 33 patients (82.5%) in whom ECMO had been discontinued at the time of analysis, 18 patients (54.5%) survived to hospital discharge, and 15 (45.5%) died during ECMO. Nonsurvivors presented with a statistically significant higher Prediction of Survival on ECMO Therapy (PRESET)-Score (mean ± SD, 8.33 ± 0.8 vs 6.17 ± 1.8; P = .001). The PRESET score demonstrated accurate mortality prediction. All patients with a PRESET-Score of 6 or lowers survived, and a score of 7 or higher was associated with a dramatic increase in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that favorable outcomes are possible in patients with COVID-19 who undergo ECMO at high-volume centers. This study demonstrated an association between the PRESET-Score and survival in patients with COVID-19 who underwent VV-ECMO. Standard risk calculators may aid in appropriate selection of patients with COVID-19 ARDS for ECMO.

Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure: How Long Is Too Long?

The use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) in adults with respiratory failure has steadily increased during the past decade. Recent literature has demonstrated variable outcomes with the use of extended ECMO. The purpose of this study is to evaluate survival to hospital discharge in patients with extended ECMO runs compared with patients with short ECMO runs at a tertiary care ECMO referral center. We retrospectively reviewed all patients on VV ECMO for respiratory failure between August 2014 and February 2017. Bridge to lung transplant, post-lung transplant, and post-cardiac surgery patients were excluded. Patients were stratified by duration of ECMO: extended ECMO, defined as >504 hours; short ECMO as ≤504 hours. Demographics, pre-ECMO data, ECMO-specific data, and outcomes were analyzed. One hundred and thirty-nine patients with respiratory failure were treated with VV ECMO. Overall survival to discharge was 76%. Thirty-one (22%) patients had extended ECMO runs with an 87% survival to discharge. When compared with patients with short ECMO runs, there was no difference in median age, body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA), partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/ fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (P/F), and survival to discharge. However, time from intubation to cannulation for ECMO was significantly longer in patients with extended ECMO runs. (p = 0.008). Our data demonstrate that patients with extended ECMO runs have equivalent outcomes to those with short ECMO runs. Although the decision to continue ECMO support in this patient population is multifactorial, we suggest that time on ECMO should not be the sole factor in this challenging decision.

Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV ECMO) for Acute Respiratory Failure Following Injury: Outcomes in a High-Volume Adult Trauma Center with a Dedicated Unit for VV ECMO.

INTRODUCTION: The use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has increased over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in adult trauma patients requiring VV ECMO. METHODS: Data were collected on adult trauma patients admitted between January 1, 2015, and November 1, 2016. Demographics, injury-specific data, ECMO data, and survival to discharge were recorded. Medians [interquartile range (IQR)] were reported. A p value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighteen patients required VV ECMO during the study period. Median age was 28.5 years (IQR 24-43). Median injury severity score (ISS) was 27 (IQR 21-41); median PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) prior to ECMO cannulation was 61 (IQR 50-70). Median time from injury to cannulation was 3 (IQR 0-6) days. Median duration of ECMO was 266 (IQR 177-379) hours. Survival to discharge was 78%. Survivors had a significantly higher ISS (p = 0.03), longer intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) (p < 0.0004), hospital LOS (p < 0.000004), and time on the ventilator (p < 0.0003). Median time of injury to cannulation was significantly longer in patients who survived to discharge (p = 0.01). There was no difference in P/F ratio prior to cannulation (p = ns). CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated improved outcome of patients requiring VV ECMO following injury compared to historical data. Although shorter time from injury to cannulation for VV ECMO was associated with death, select patients who meet criteria for VV ECMO early following injury should be referred/transferred to a tertiary care facility that specializes in trauma and ECMO care.

The lung rescue unit-Does a dedicated intensive care unit for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation improve survival to discharge?

BACKGROUND: The use of venovenous extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) for acute respiratory failure (ARF)/acute respiratory (ARDS) has increased since 2009. Specialized units for patients requiring VV ECMO are not standard and patients are often cohorted with other critically ill patients. The purpose of this study was to report the outcome of adult patients admitted in 2015 to the lung rescue unit, which, to our knowledge, is the first intensive care unit in the United States that has been specifically created to provide care for patients requiring VV ECMO. METHODS: Data were collected on all patients admitted to the lung rescue unit on VV ECMO between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015. Demographics, medical history, pre-ECMO data, indication for VV ECMO as well as duration of ECMO and survival to decannulation and discharge were recorded. Means (± standard deviation) and medians (interquartile range [IQR]) were reported when appropriate. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were enrolled. Median age was 48 years (IQR, 32-57). Median PaO2/FIO2 ratio before cannulation was 66 (IQR, 53-86). Median ventilator days before cannulation was 2 (IQR, 1-4). Median time on VV ECMO for all patients was 311 hours (IQR, 203-461). Thirty-eight (78%) patients were successfully decannulated with 35 (71%) patients surviving to hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: The use of VV ECMO for ARF/ARDS is increasing. We have demonstrated that a dedicated multidisciplinary intensive care unit for the purpose of providing standardized care with specialized trained providers can improve survival to discharge for patients that require VV ECMO for ARF/ARDS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.

Epidural abscess due to spinal cord stimulator trial.

Spinal cord stimulation is increasingly utilized as a treatment to alleviate low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy, particularly in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. We present an illustrative case of early, rapidly progressive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection after a brief stimulator trial lead implantation. Operators should maintain a high level of suspicion for deep infection, including epidural abscess, even when only minor symptoms and signs are present. Because of the poor ability to clear infections in the presence of a retained foreign body, the device must be explanted immediately. Subsequent surgical intervention, however, may nevertheless still be needed. While a variety of bacteria may cause epidural abscess, methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, and increasingly, MRSA and community-associated MRSA, are the most likely etiologic organisms.