RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) might be a lifesaving therapy for patients with cardiac arrest and no return of spontaneous circulation during advanced life support. However, even with ECPR, mortality of these severely sick patients is high. Little is known on the exact mode of death in these patients. METHODS: Retrospective registry analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing ECPR between May 2011 and May 2020 at a single center. Mode of death was judged by two researchers. RESULTS: A total of 274 ECPR cases were included (age 60.0 years, 47.1% shockable initial rhythm, median time-to-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) 53.8min, hospital survival 25.9%). The 71 survivors had shorter time-to-ECMO durations (46.0 ± 27.9 vs. 56.6 ± 28.8min, p < 0.01), lower initial lactate levels (7.9 ± 4.5 vs. 11.6 ± 8.4 mg/dL, p < 0.01), higher PREDICT-6h (41.7 ± 17.0% vs. 25.3 ± 19.0%, p < 0.01), and SAVE (0.4 ± 4.8 vs. -0.8 ± 4.4, p < 0.01) scores. Most common mode of death in 203 deceased patients was therapy resistant shock in 105/203 (51.7%) and anoxic brain injury in 69/203 (34.0%). Comparing patients deceased with shock to those with cerebral damage, patients with shock were significantly older (63.2 ± 11.5 vs. 54.3 ± 16.5 years, p < 0.01), more frequently resuscitated in-hospital (64.4% vs. 29.9%, p < 0.01) and had shorter time-to-ECMO durations (52.3 ± 26.8 vs. 69.3 ± 29.1min p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients after ECPR decease due to refractory shock. Older patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest might be prone to development of refractory shock. Only a minority die from cerebral damage. Research should focus on preventing post-CPR shock and treating the shock in these patients.
RESUMO
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.
