Obstructive Shock, from Diagnosis to Treatment.

Shock is a life threatening pathological condition characterized by inadequate tissue oxygen supply. Four different subgroups of shock have been proposed according to the mechanism causing the shock. Of these, obstructive shock is characterized by reduction in cardiac output due to noncardiac diseases. The most recognized causes include pulmonary embolism, tension pneumothorax, pericardial tamponade and aortic dissection. Since obstructive shock typically cannot be stabilized unless cause for shock is resolved, diagnosis of the underlying disease is eminent. In this review, we therefore focus on diagnosis of obstructive shock and suggest a structured approach in three steps including clinical examination, ultrasound examination using the rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) protocol and radiological imaging if needed.

Key characteristics impacting survival of COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent German health insurance data revealed low ICU survival rates. Patient characteristics and experience of the ECMO center may determine intensive care unit (ICU) survival. The current study aimed to identify factors affecting ICU survival of COVID-19 ECMO patients. METHODS: 673 COVID-19 ARDS ECMO patients treated in 26 centers between January 1st 2020 and March 22nd 2021 were included. Data on clinical characteristics, adjunct therapies, complications, and outcome were documented. Block wise logistic regression analysis was applied to identify variables associated with ICU-survival. RESULTS: Most patients were between 50 and 70 years of age. PaO2/FiO2 ratio prior to ECMO was 72 mmHg (IQR: 58-99). ICU survival was 31.4%. Survival was significantly lower during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of 284 (42%) patients fulfilling modified EOLIA criteria had a higher survival (38%) (p = 0.0014, OR 0.64 (CI 0.41-0.99)). Survival differed between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers with 20%, 30%, and 38%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Treatment in high volume centers resulted in an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.28-1.02) compared to low volume centers. Additional factors associated with survival were younger age, shorter time between intubation and ECMO initiation, BMI > 35 (compared to < 25), absence of renal replacement therapy or major bleeding/thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Structural and patient-related factors, including age, comorbidities and ECMO case volume, determined the survival of COVID-19 ECMO. These factors combined with a more liberal ECMO indication during the 2nd wave may explain the reasonably overall low survival rate. Careful selection of patients and treatment in high volume ECMO centers was associated with higher odds of ICU survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (study ID: DRKS00022964, retrospectively registered, September 7th 2020, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00022964 .

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first three waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective single-center registry study.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing knowledge about the optimal treatment for patients with severe COVID-19, data from different cohorts suggested that survival of patients treated with ECMO seemed to decline over the course of the pandemic. METHODS: In this non-interventional retrospective single-center registry study we analyzed all consecutive patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and supported with VV ECMO in our center during the first three waves of the pandemic. From March 2020 through June 2021, 59 patients have been included. RESULTS: Overall 90-day survival was 32%. Besides changes in drug treatment for COVID-19 and a lower PaO2 /FiO2 ratio before ECMO initiation during the third wave, all other patient baseline characteristics were similar during the three waves. Survival rate was highest during the first wave and lowest during the third wave, yet this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: VV ECMO has shown to be a feasible and safe support option for patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The results from this single-center study confirm findings from other cohorts showing declining survival rates of patients treated with VV ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the specific reasons for this finding remain unclear.

Annual hospital procedural volume and outcome in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: The hospital mortality of patients suffering from pulmonary failure requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) or extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2 R) is high. It is unclear whether outcome correlates with a hospital's annual procedural volume. METHODS: Data on all V-V ECMO and ECCO2 R cases treated from 2007 to 2019 were retrieved from the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information. Comorbidities and outcomes were assessed by DRG, OPS, and ICD codes. The study population was divided into 5 groups depending on annual hospital V-V ECMO and ECCO2 R volumes (<10 cases; 10-19 cases; 20-29 cases; 30-49 cases; ≥50 cases). Primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 25 096 V-V ECMO and 3607 ECCO2 R cases were analyzed. V-V ECMO hospitals increased from 89 in 2007 to 214 in 2019. Hospitals handling <10 cases annually increased especially (64 in 2007 to 149 in 2019). V-V ECMO cases rose from 807 in 2007 to 2597 in 2019. Over 50% of cases were treated in hospitals handling ≥30 cases annually. Hospital mortality was independent of the annual hospital procedural volume (55.3%; 61.3%; 59.8%; 60.2%; 56.3%, respectively, p = 0.287). We detected no differences when comparing hospitals handling <30 cases to those with ≥30 annually (p = 0.659). The numbers of ECCO2 R hospitals and cases has dropped since 2011 (287 in 2007 to 48 in 2019). No correlation between annual hospital procedural volume and hospital mortality was identified (p = 0.914). CONCLUSION: The number of hospitals treating patients requiring V-V ECMO and V-V ECMO cases rose from 2007 to 2019, while ECCO2 R hospitals and their case numbers decreased. We detected no correlation between annual hospital V-V ECMO or ECCO2 R volume and hospital mortality.

Incidence and predictors of delirium on the intensive care unit after acute myocardial infarction, insight from a retrospective registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the incidence and potential risk factors for delirium after myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication on intensive care units. Data on incidence and especially on predictors of delirium in patients after acute MI are rare. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients hospitalized for MI treated with coronary angiography in an university hospital in 2018 were included and analyzed. Onset of delirium within the first 5 days after MI was attributed to the MI and was defined by a Nursing Delirium screening scale (NuDesc) ≥2. This score is taken as part of daily care in every patient on intensive care unit three times a day by especially trained nurses. RESULTS: A total of 624 patients with MI (age 68.5 ± 13.2 years, ST-elevation MI 41.6%, hospital mortality 3.2%) were included in the study. Delirium was detected in 10.9% of all patients. In the subgroup of patients with a stay on the intensive care unit (ICU) for more than 24 hr (n = 229), delirium was detected in 29.7%. Hospital and ICU stay were significantly longer in patients with delirium (p < .001). Delirium was an independent predictor of prolonged ICU-stay. Independent predictors of delirium were age, dementia, alcohol abuse, cardiac arrest, hypotension, and leucocytosis. Infarct size or presentation with ST-elevation were not associated with incidence of delirium. CONCLUSION: Development of delirium is frequent after acute MI and prolongs hospitalization. Incidence of delirium is associated with clinical instability, preexisting comorbidity, and age rather than MI type or size.

Long-term survival and health-related quality of life in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information about the long-term outcome of patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO). Most studies focused on short- to mid-term follow-up. We aimed to investigate long-term survival and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in these patients. METHODS: We report retrospective data from a single-centre registry of patients with severe ARDS treated with VV ECMO at the Interdisciplinary Medical Intensive Care Unit at the Medical Centre, University of Freiburg, Germany, between 10/2010 and 06/2019. Follow-up data of all patients that survived the index hospitalisation were collected by telephone interviews from 02/2020 till 09/2020. Long-term survival, HRQL (Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36), St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)) and the return to work rate were documented. RESULTS: In total, 289 patients were treated with VV ECMO during the study period (median age 55 years, 67% males, hospital survival 45%). After a median duration of 3.9 years, follow-up assessment was complete in 94 of 129 hospital survivors (73%). Fifty-three patients completed the HRQL assessment. Hospital survivors showed a high 6- and 12-month survival rate (89% and 85%, respectively). Estimated survival rate of those discharged alive from ICU was 68.5% (95%-CI 56.9-80.1%) after 9.7 years. These patients reported high levels of HRQL (median SF-36 total score 73) and only few pulmonary (median SGRQ total score 19) and mental limitations (median HAD-D score 2 and HAD-A score 3). In total, 80% of the patients were able to resume employment. CONCLUSION: This analysis of VV ECMO patients showed favourable long-term survival and high levels of HRQL suggesting promising prospects for VV ECMO survivors.

Incidence of Barotrauma in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia During Prolonged Invasive Mechanical Ventilation - A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV2 can cause pulmonary failure requiring prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Lung protective ventilation strategies are recommended in order to minimize ventilator induced lung injury. Whether patients with COVID-19 have the same risk for complications including barotrauma is still unknown. Therefore, we investigated barotrauma in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring prolonged MV. METHODS: All patients meeting diagnosis criteria for ARDS according to the Berlin Definition, with PCR positive SARS-CoV2 infection and prolonged mechanical ventilation, defined as ≥2 days, treated at our ARDS referral center between March and April 2020 were included in a retrospective registry analysis. Complications were detected by manual review of all patient data including respiratory data, imaging studies, and patient files. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients with severe COVID-19 pulmonary failure (Overall characteristics: median age: 61 years, female gender 6, median duration of MV 22 days) were analyzed. Eight patients (40%) developed severe barotrauma during MV (after median 18 days, range: 1-32) including pneumothorax (5/20), pneumomediastinum (5/20), pneumopericard (1/20), and extended subcutaneous emphysema (5/20). Median respirator settings 24 hours before barotrauma were: Peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak) 29 cm H2O (range: 27-35), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 14 cm H2O (range: 5-24), tidal volume (VT) 5.4ml/kg predicted body weight (range 0.4-8.6), plateau pressure (Pplateau) 27 cm H2O (range: 19-30). Mechanical ventilation was significantly more invasive on several occasions in patients without barotrauma. CONCLUSION: Barotrauma in COVID-19 induced respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation was found in 40% of patients included in this registry. Our data suggest that barotrauma in COVID-19 may occur even when following recommendations for lung protective MV.

Thrombotic circuit complications during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the resulting disease COVID-19 causes pulmonary failure including severe courses requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). Coagulopathy is a known complication of COVID-19 leading to thrombotic events including pulmonary embolism. It is unclear if the coagulopathy also increases thrombotic circuit complications of the ECMO. Aim of the present study therefor was to investigate the rate of V-V ECMO complications in COVID-19. We conducted a retrospective registry study including all patients on V-V ECMO treated at our centre between 01/2018 and 04/2020. COVID-19 cases were compared non- COVID-19 cases. All circuit related complications resulting in partial or complete exchange of the extracorporeal system were registered. In total, 66 patients were analysed of which 11 (16.7%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The two groups did not differ in clinical parameters including age (COVID-19 59.4 vs. non-COVID-19 58.1 years), gender (36.4% vs. 40%), BMI (27.8 vs. 24.2) and severity of illness as quantified by the RESP Score (1pt. vs 1pt.). 28 days survival was similar in both groups (72.7% vs. 58.2%). While anticoagulation was similar in both groups (p = 0.09), centrifugal pump head thrombosis was more frequent in COVID-19 (9/11 versus 16/55 p < 0.01). Neither the time to first exchange (p = 0.61) nor blood flow at exchange (p = 0.68) did differ in both groups. D-dimer levels prior to the thrombotic events were significantly higher in COVID-19 (mean 15.48 vs 26.59, p = 0.01). The SARS-CoV-2 induced infection is associated with higher rates of thrombotic events of the extracorporeal system during V-V ECMO therapy.

Combining lung ultrasound and Wells score for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Subpleural consolidations have been found in lung ultrasound in patients with COVID-19, possibly deriving from pulmonary embolism (PE). The diagnostic utility of impact of lung ultrasound in critical-ill patients with COVID-19 for PE diagnostics however is unclear. We retrospectively evaluated all SARS-CoV2-associated ARDS patients admitted to our ICU between March 8th and May 31th 2020. They were enrolled in this study, when a lung ultrasound and a computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were documented. In addition, wells score was calculated to estimate the probability of PE. The CTPA was used as the gold standard for the detection of PE. Twenty out of 25 patients met the inclusion criteria. In 12/20 patients (60%) (sub-) segmental PE were detected by CT-angiography. Lung ultrasound found subpleural consolidations in 90% of patients. PE-typical large supleural consolidations with a size ≥ 1 cm were detectable in 65% of patients and were significant more frequent in patients with PE compared to those without (p = 0.035). Large consolidations predicted PE with a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 71%. The Wells score was significantly higher in patients with PE compared to those without (2.7 ± 0.8 and 1.7 ± 0.5, respectively, p = 0.042) and predicted PE with an AUC of 0.81. When combining the two modalities, comparing patients with considered/probable PE using LUS plus a Wells score ≥ 2 to patients with possible/unlikely PE in LUS plus a Wells score < 2, PE could be predicted with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 80%. Large consolidations detected in lung ultrasound were found frequently in COVID-19 ARDS patients with pulmonary embolism. In combination with a Wells score > 2, this might indicate a high-risk for PE in COVID-19.

Influence of immunosuppression in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy.

Prognosis of patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is poor. This is especially true for immunosuppressed patients. It is controverisal whether these patients should receive veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) while evidence on this topic is sparse. We report retrospective data of a single-center registry of patients with severe ARDS requiring ECMO support between October 2010 and June 2019. Patients were analyzed by their status of immunosuppression. ECMO weaning success and hospital survival were analyzed before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Moreover, ventilator free days (VFD) were compared. A total of 288 patients were analyzed (age 55 years, 67% male), 88 (31%) presented with immunosuppression. Survival rates were lower in immunosuppressed patients (27% vs. 53%, P < .001 and 27% vs. 48% after PSM, P = .006). VFD (60 days) were lower for patients with immunosuppression (11.9 vs. 22.4, P < .001), and immunosuppression was an independent predictor for mortality in multivariate analysis. Hospital survival was 20%, 14%, 35%, and 46% for patients with oncological malignancies, solid organ transplantation, autoimmune diseases, and HIV, respectively. In this analysis immunosuppression was an independent predictor for mortality. However, there were major differences in the weaning and survival rates between the etiologies of immunosuppression which should be considered in decision making.

Outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Covid-19 or influenza: A single-center registry study.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is used to sustain blood oxygenation and decarboxylation in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is under debate if V-V ECMO is as appropriate for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) ARDS as it is for influenza. In this retrospective study, we analyzed all patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or influenza A/B infection, ARDS and V-V ECMO, treated at our medical intensive care unit (ICU) between October 2010 and June 2020. Baseline and procedural characteristics as well as survival 30 days after ECMO cannulation were analyzed. A total of 62 V-V ECMO patients were included (15 with Covid-19 and 47 with influenza). Both groups had similar baseline characteristics at cannulation. Thirty days after ECMO cannulation, 13.3% of all patients with Covid-19 were discharged alive from our ICU compared to 44.7% with influenza (P = .03). Patients with Covid-19 had fewer ECMO-free days (0 (0-9.7) days vs. 13.2 (0-22.1) days; P = .05). Cumulative incidences of 30-day-survival showed no significant differences (48.6% in Covid-19 patients, 63.7% in influenza patients; P = .23). ICU treatment duration was significantly longer in ARDS patients with V-V ECMO for Covid-19 compared to influenza. Thirty-day mortality was higher in Covid-19, but not significant.

Extracorporeal life support in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A EuroELSO international survey.

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID-19 cases, mostly in veno-venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno-arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient's recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID-19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID-19 benefitted from ECLS.

Intracerebral Hemorrhage in COVID-19 Patients with Pulmonary Failure: A Propensity Score-Matched Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: Hypercoagulability in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism necessitating systemic anticoagulation. Case reports of intracerebral hemorrhages in ventilated COVID-19 patients warrant precaution. It is unclear, however, if COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with or without veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (VV-ECMO) have more intracerebral hemorrhages (ICH) compared to other ARDS patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational single-center study enrolling all patients with ARDS from 01/2018 to 05/2020. PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 patients with ARDS were allocated to the COVID-19 group. Propensity score matching was performed for age, VV-ECMO, and bleeding risk. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients with moderate or severe ARDS were identified, 47 (28.8%) in the COVID-19 group, and 116 (71.2%) in the non-COVID-19 group. In 63/163 cases (38.7%), VV-ECMO therapy was required. The ICU survival was 52.8%. COVID-19 patients were older, more often male, and exhibited a lower SOFA score, but the groups showed similar rates of VV-ECMO therapy. Treatments with antiplatelet agents (p = 0.043) and therapeutic anticoagulation (p = 0.028) were significantly more frequent in the COVID-19 patients. ICH was detected in 22 patients (13.5%) with no statistical difference between the groups (11.2 vs. 19.1% without and with SARS-CoV-2, respectively, p = 0.21). Propensity score matching confirmed similar rates of ICH in both groups (12.8 vs. 19.1% without and with SARS-CoV-2, respectively, p = 0.57), thus leveling out possible confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Intracerebral hemorrhage was detected in every tenth patient with ARDS. Despite statistically higher rates of antiplatelet therapy and therapeutic anticoagulation in COVID-19 patients, we found a similar rate of ICH in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 compared to other causes of ARDS.

Predictors of survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to investigate predictors of survival in unstable patients with high SYNTAX-1-score. BACKGROUND: In significant unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis, treatment options include percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). While CABG is recommended for stable patients with ULMCA stenosis and a SYNTAX-1-score > 32, PCI may be preferable in unstable or high operative risk patients. METHODS: Retrospective single-center all-comers registry study. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients underwent ULMCA-PCI (~72.9 years, 23.2% females, 54.2% survival in 2-year follow-up), 84 of whom had a SYNTAX-1 > 32 (37.4 ± 12.8). Patients in the high-SYNTAX-1-group (score > 32) were more often in an acute condition compared to low-SYNTAX-2-group (score ≤ 32) including acute myocardial infarction (76.2% vs. 57.4%, p = .024), cardiogenic shock (48.2% vs. 14.8%, p = .001), or need for mechanical support (36.1% vs. 11.1%, p = .001). Survival was predicted by the acute condition including cardiogenic shock (OR 0.06 and 0.05) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.03 and 0.34) in both groups. Performance of the SYNTAX-1-score was limited in our patient collective in both groups (c-index 0.65 vs. 0.63) while SYNTAX-2-PCI-score performed better (c-index 0.67 vs. 0.67). EuroScore II had the best discriminative ability (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing ULMCA-PCI presented in acute conditions with high SYNTAX-1-score, and is therefore underrepresented in clinical trials. Prognosis was best predicted by the acute condition and the EuroScore II. These data suggest that therapy in unstable patients should be guided by clinical condition over the anatomical SYNTAX-1-score.

Prone positioning in severe ARDS requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) has shown to improve survival in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). To this point, it is unclear if PP is also beneficial for ARDS patients treated with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) support. METHODS: We report retrospective data of a single-centre registry of patients with severe ARDS requiring VV ECMO support between October 2010 and May 2018. Patients were allocated to the PP group if PP was performed during VV ECMO treatment or the supine positioning group. VV ECMO weaning success and hospital survival were analysed before and after propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients could be analysed, and 38 patients (24.1%) received PP. There were no significant differences in VV ECMO weaning rate (47.4% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.94) and hospital survival (36.8% vs. 36.7%, p = 0.98) between the prone and supine groups, respectively. The analysis of 38 propensity score matched pairs also showed no difference in hospital survival (36.8% vs. 36.8%, p = 1.0) or VV ECMO weaning rate (47.4% vs. 44.7%, p = 0.82). Hospital survival was superior in the subgroup of patients treated with early PP (cutoff < 17 h via Youden's Index) as compared to late or no PP (81.8% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In this propensity score matched cohort of severe ARDS patients requiring VV ECMO support, prone positioning at any time was not associated with improved weaning or survival. However, early initiation of prone positioning was linked to a significant reduction of hospital mortality.

Epinephrine, inodilator, or no inotrope in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation implantation: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) can be a rescue therapy for patients in cardiogenic shock or in refractory cardiac arrest. After cannulation, vasoplegia and cardiac depression are frequent. In literature, there are conflicting data on inotropic therapy in these patients. METHODS: Analysis of a retrospective registry of all patients treated with VA-ECMO in a university hospital center between October 2010 and December 2018 for cardiogenic shock or extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) with a focus on individual early inotropic therapy. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients (age 58.6 ± 14.3, 29.9% female, 58% eCPR, in-house survival 43.7%) were analyzed. Of these, 41.6% received no inotrope therapy within the first 24 h (survival 47.9%), 29.0% received an inodilator (survival 52.2%), and 29.0% received epinephrine (survival 25.0%). Survival of patients with epinephrine was significantly worse compared to other patient groups when evaluating 30-day survival (p = 0.034/p = 0.005) and cumulative incidence of in-hospital death (p = 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, treatment with epinephrine was associated with mortality in the whole cohort (OR 0.38, p = 0.011) as well as after propensity score matching (OR 0.24, p = 0.037). We found no significant differences between patients with inodilator treatment and those without. CONCLUSION: Early epinephrine therapy within the first 24 h after cannulation for VA-ECMO was associated with poor survival compared to patients with or without any inodilator therapy. Until randomized data are available, epinephrine should be avoided in patients on VA-ECMO.

A Mortality Prediction Score for Patients With Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO): The PREDICT VV-ECMO Score.

Mortality prediction for patients with the severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is challenging. Clinical variables at baseline and on day 3 after initiation of ECMO support of all patients treated from October 2010 through April 2020 were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify score variables. Internal and external (Monza, Italy) validation was used to evaluate the predictive value of the model. Overall, 272 patients could be included for data analysis and creation of the PREDICT VV-ECMO score. The score comprises five parameters (age, lung fibrosis, immunosuppression, cumulative fluid balance, and ECMO sweep gas flow on day 3). Higher score values are associated with a higher probability of hospital death. The score showed favorable results in derivation and external validation cohorts (area under the receiver operating curve, AUC derivation cohort 0.76 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.71-0.82] and AUC validation cohort 0.74 [95% CI, 0.67-0.82]). Four risk classes were defined: I ≤ 30, II 31-60, III 61-90, and IV ≥ 91 with a predicted mortality of 28.2%, 56.2%, 84.8%, and 96.1%, respectively. The PREDICT VV-ECMO score suggests favorable performance in predicting hospital mortality under ongoing ECMO support providing a sound basis for further evaluation in larger cohorts.

Carboxyhemoglobin (CO-Hb) Correlates with Hemolysis and Hospital Mortality in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Retrospective Registry.

Background: Patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may develop elevated carboxyhemoglobin (CO-Hb), a finding described in the context of hemolysis. Clinical relevance of elevated CO-Hb in ECMO is unclear. We therefore investigated the prognostic relevance of CO-Hb during ECMO support. Methods: Data derives from a retrospective single-center registry study. All ECMO patients in a medical ICU from October 2010 through December 2019 were considered. Peak arterial CO-Hb value during ECMO support and median CO-Hb values determined by point-of-care testing for distinct time intervals were determined. Groups were divided by CO-Hb (<2% or ≥2%). The primary endpoint was hospital survival. Results: A total of 729 patients with 59,694 CO-Hb values met the inclusion criteria. Median age (IQR) was 59 (48−68) years, 221/729 (30.3%) were female, and 278/729 (38.1%) survived until hospital discharge. Initial ECMO configuration was veno-arterial in 431/729 (59.1%) patients and veno-venous in 298/729 (40.9%) patients. Markers for hemolysis (lactate dehydrogenase, bilirubin, hemolysis index, and haptoglobin) all correlated significantly with higher CO-Hb (p < 0.001, respectively). Hospital survival was significantly higher in patients with CO-Hb < 2% compared to CO-Hb ≥ 2%, evaluating time periods 24−48 h (48.6% vs. 35.2%, p = 0.003), 48−72 h (51.5% vs. 36.8%, p = 0.003), or >72 h (56.9% vs. 31.1%, p < 0.001) after ECMO cannulation. Peak CO-Hb was independently associated with lower hospital survival after adjustment for confounders. Conclusions: In ECMO, CO-Hb correlates with hemolysis and hospital survival. If high CO-Hb measured should trigger a therapeutic intervention in order to reduce hemolysis has to be investigated in prospective trials.