Prognostic factors associated with mortality among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be considered for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who continue to deteriorate despite evidence-based therapies and lung-protective ventilation. The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization has emphasised the importance of patient selection; however, to better inform these decisions, a comprehensive and evidence-based understanding of the risk factors associated with poor outcomes is necessary. We aimed to summarise the association between pre-cannulation prognostic factors and risk of mortality in adult patients requiring venovenous ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from Dec 1, 2019, to April 14, 2022, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies involving adult patients who required ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS and for whom pre-cannulation prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality were evaluated. We conducted separate meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (uORs), adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs), and mean differences, and excluded studies if these data could not be extracted. We assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Our protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework registry, osf.io/6gcy2. FINDINGS: Our search identified 2888 studies, of which 42 observational cohort studies involving 17 449 patients were included. Factors that had moderate or high certainty of association with increased mortality included patient factors, such as older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2·27 [95% CI 1·63-3·16]), male sex (unadjusted odds ratio [uOR] 1·34 [1·20-1·49]), and chronic lung disease (aHR 1·55 [1·20-2·00]); pre-cannulation disease factors, such as longer duration of symptoms (mean difference 1·51 days [95% CI 0·36-2·65]), longer duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (uOR 1·94 [1·40-2·67]), higher partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (mean difference 4·04 mm Hg [1·64-6·44]), and higher driving pressure (aHR 2·36 [1·40-3·97]); and centre factors, such as less previous experience with ECMO (aOR 2·27 [1·28-4·05]. INTERPRETATION: The prognostic factors identified highlight the importance of patient selection, the effect of injurious lung ventilation, and the potential opportunity for greater centralisation and collaboration in the use of ECMO for the treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS. These factors should be carefully considered as part of a risk stratification framework when evaluating a patient for potential treatment with venovenous ECMO. FUNDING: None.

In adults hospitalized with COVID-19, adding baricitinib vs. dexamethasone to remdesivir did not differ for MV-free survival.

SOURCE CITATION: Wolfe CR, Tomashek KM, Patterson TF, et al. Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2022;10:888-99. 35617986.

VTE Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.