Incidence and Risk Factors Associated with Thromboembolic Events among Patients with COVID-19 Inpatients: A Retrospective Study.

Aims and objectives: Despite thromboprophylaxis, some severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients develop thrombotic complications with poor prognosis. Our goal is to comprehensively assess the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes associated with thromboembolic events (TE) among adult patients presenting with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Materials and methods: The study was conducted as an observational and retrospective study across COVID-19 patients (n = 207) in a tertiary care hospital in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Electronic health records were collected from the COVID-19 Database from April 2020 to December 2020 which included clinical history and TE. Results: Fifty-six (27.05%) out of 207 patients (age: 54.42 ± 15.01 years) developed TE despite the anticoagulant therapy. The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was significantly higher for patients aged >50 years compared to <50 years (73.21% vs 26.79%, p < 0.05). There were no differences in the incidence of VTE between genders (p = 0.561). 165 patients (79.71%) received anticoagulant therapy, yet 48 (29%) developed TE. The most commonly used anticoagulant was low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH, 47.34%). In spite of efficient treatment and medical management, the majority of patients with TE (45 out of 56 patients, 80.35%) experienced mortality. The comorbidities that significantly increase the risk of TE include hypertension (HTN) and ischemic heart disease (IHD). The laboratory parameters that were associated with an increased risk of VTE include ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and creatinine. Conclusion: The COVID-19 patients develop thrombotic complications. Future studies should clarify the underlying mechanisms of TE and optimize the antithrombotic regimens in COVID-19 patients. How to cite this article: Tashkandi WA. Incidence and Risk Factors Associated with Thromboembolic Events among Patients with COVID-19 Inpatients: A Retrospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(11):830-836.

Ultrasound surveillance for deep venous thrombosis and subsequent venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown routine ultrasound surveillance (RUSS) will facilitate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) detection in patients with trauma and reduce the subsequent incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE); however, the findings were inconsistent. In adults with trauma at a high risk of venous thromboembolism, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared RUSS outcomes with those of "no RUSS." METHODS: Three databases were screened for relevant articles from inception to October 18, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing RUSS with no RUSS were included. We used relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), and mean differences to pool effect estimates for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. The cochrane risk of bias or the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions were used to assess bias risk. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation framework assessed the certainty of the evidence. FINDINGS: Out of 1685 articles, 5 met the inclusion criteria (RCT: 1; observational studies: 4). Observational studies suggested RUSS is associated with higher odds of DVT detection (OR, 4.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.13-7.57; very low certainty). Whereas higher risks of DVT were associated with RUSS in the RCT (distal DVT: RR, 15.48; 95% CI, 7.62-31.48; low certainty, and proximal DVT: RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.04-5.39; very low certainty). Reduced odds of PE risk were observed with the RUSS (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.91; very low certainty). Observational studies indicated that RUSS had an uncertain effect on mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.06-3.49). In the RCT, times to proximal and distal DVT diagnoses were shorter with RUSS (proximal DVT, mean difference 2.25 days shorter [95% CI, 5.74-1.24]; distal DVT, mean differences 1.56 days shorter [95% CI, 4.22-1.12]; very low certainty for both). Increasing bleeding risk was not linked to the RUSS group (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.31-4.92). INTERPRETATION: The RUSS efficacy in adults with trauma at high risk for venous thromboembolism showed that it increases DVT detection, decreases PE incidence, and shortens the time to DVT diagnosis, with an uncertain impact on mortality. The evidence is low or very low in certainty because of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. METHODS: The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). RESULTS: The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSION: The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations­one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate­high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Tocilizumab Outcomes in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU and the Role of Non-Tocilizumab COVID-19-Specific Medical Therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody proposed to manage cytokine release syndrome (CRS) associated with severe COVID-19. Previously published reports have shown that tocilizumab may improve the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, no precise data about the role of other medical therapeutics concurrently used for COVID-19 on this outcome have been published. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the overall outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU who received tocilizumab with the outcome of matched patients who did not receive tocilizumab while controlling for other confounders, including medical therapeutics for critically ill patients admitted to ICUs. METHODS: A prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted among critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia between 1 March 2020, and October 31, 2020. Propensity-score matching was utilized to compare patients who received tocilizumab to patients who did not. In addition, the log-rank test was used to compare the 28 day hospital survival of patients who received tocilizumab with those who did not. Then, a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the matched groups was performed to evaluate the impact of the remaining concurrent medical therapeutics that could not be excluded via matching 28 day hospital survival rates. The primary outcome measure was patients' overall 28 day hospital survival, and the secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay and ICU survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1470 unmatched patients were included, of whom 426 received tocilizumab. The total number of propensity-matched patients was 1278. Overall, 28 day hospital survival revealed a significant difference between the unmatched non-tocilizumab group (586; 56.1%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.016), and this difference increased even more in the propensity-matched analysis between the non-tocilizumab group (466.7; 54.6%) and the tocilizumab group (269; 63.1%) (p-value = 0.005). The matching model successfully matched the two groups' common medical therapeutics used to treat COVID-19. Two medical therapeutics remained significantly different, favoring the tocilizumab group. A multivariate logistic regression was performed for the 28 day hospital survival in the propensity-matched patients. It showed that neither steroids (OR: 1.07 (95% CI: 0.75-1.53)) (p = 0.697) nor favipiravir (OR: 1.08 (95% CI: 0.61-1.9)) (p = 0.799) remained as a predictor for an increase in 28 day survival. CONCLUSION: The tocilizumab treatment in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU improved the overall 28 day hospital survival, which might not be influenced by the concurrent use of other COVID-19 medical therapeutics, although further research is needed to confirm this.

Impact of diabetes mellitus and co-morbidities on mortality in patients with COVID-19: A single-center retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the effect of diabetes mellitus (DM) on clinical outcomes of patients admitted with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We carried out a single center, observational, retrospective study. We included adult patients with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to a tertiary hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, from April 2020 to December 2020. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographics, clinical status, hospital course, and outcome; and they were compared between the patients with or without DM. RESULTS: Out of 198 patients included in the study, 86 (43.4%) were diabetic and 112 (56.5%) were non-diabetic. Majority of the patients were males 139 (70.2%) with a mean age of 54.14±14.89 years. In-hospital mortality rate was higher in diabetic patients than in non-diabetic patients (40 vs. 32; p=0.011). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (n=95, 48%) followed by ischemic heart disease (n=35, 17.7%), chronic kidney disease (n=17, 9.6%), and bronchial asthma (n=10, 5.1%). CONCLUSION: The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is higher among diabetic patients; particularly, those with preexisting co-morbidities or geriatric patients. Diabetic patients are prone to a severe clinical course of COVID-19 and a significantly higher mortality rate.

Tezepelumab for Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tezepelumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks thymic stromal lymphopoietin, an epithelial-cell-derived cytokine implicated in the pathogenesis of asthma. It was approved by the United States Federal Drug Administration (US FDA) as an add-on maintenance treatment for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma in December 2021. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety and efficacy of tezepelumab on forced expiratory volume (FEV1) (L), the rate of asthma exacerbations, health-related quality of life, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (ppb), and blood eosinophil count (cells/mL) in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma. Mean changes for efficacy and proportions (safety) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to provide pooled estimates. A total of six randomized controlled trials comprising 2667 patients were included, of whom 1610 were treated with tezepelumab and 1057 received placebo. The pooled analysis showed that tezepelumab treatment resulted in an improvement in FEV1 of 0.15 L (95% CI: 0.12 to 0.17), a reduction in the asthma exacerbation rate per year of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.51 to 0.70), and a reduction in FeNO of -12.41 ppb (95% CI: -14.28 to -10.53) when compared to placebo. Improvements in FEV1 and FeNO levels were maintained at 24 and 52 weeks. As for safety, patients did not experience a higher incidence of adverse drug reactions with tezepelumab (0.79 (95% CI: 0.55 to 1.12)) as compared to placebo. As for quality of life, different doses of the tezepelumab intervention group depicted non-significant improvement in the QoL, from 0.15 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.38) for 70 mg, 0.18 (95% CI: -0.10 to 0.46) for 210 mg, 0.08 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.32) for 280 mg as compared to the placebo. Tezepelumab significantly reduced exacerbation rates and improved FEV1 with an acceptable safety profile.

Machine learning decision tree algorithm role for predicting mortality in critically ill adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and is currently a major cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions globally. The role of machine learning in the ICU is evolving but currently limited to diagnostic and prognostic values. A decision tree (DT) algorithm is a simple and intuitive machine learning method that provides sequential nonlinear analysis of variables. It is simple and might be a valuable tool for bedside physicians during COVID-19 to predict ICU outcomes and help in critical decision-making like end-of-life decisions and bed allocation in the event of limited ICU bed capacities. Herein, we utilized a machine learning DT algorithm to describe the association of a predefined set of variables and 28-day ICU outcome in adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. We highlight the value of utilizing a machine learning DT algorithm in the ICU at the time of a COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a prospective and multicenter cohort study involving 14 hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020. The predictors of 28-day ICU mortality were identified using two predictive models: conventional logistic regression and DT analyses. RESULTS: There were 1468 critically ill COVID-19 patients included in the study. The 28-day ICU mortality was 540 (36.8 %), and the 90-day mortality was 600 (40.9 %). The DT algorithm identified five variables that were integrated into the algorithm to predict 28-day ICU outcomes: need for intubation, need for vasopressors, age, gender, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio. CONCLUSION: DT is a simple tool that might be utilized in the ICU to identify critically ill COVID-19 patients who are at high risk of 28-day ICU mortality. However, further studies and external validation are still required.

Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Stewardship Program in Long-Term Care: A Five-Year Prospective Single-Center Study.

Objective: To report the effectiveness of the antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) in a long-term care (LTC) facility, by analyzing the change in antimicrobial consumption and cost and multidrug resistance (MDR) rates over a 5-year period. Method: A prospective interventional study was conducted at a 106-bed facility (nursing home: 100 beds and an intensive care unit (ICU): 6 beds). The ASP was designed and led by a multidisciplinary team including an infectious disease consultant, two clinical pharmacists, a clinical microbiologist, and an infection control preventionist. Five key performance indicators were monitored: (1) intravenous (IV)-to-oral switch rate, (2) consumption of restricted IV antimicrobials (raw consumption and defined daily doses (DDD) index), (3) cost of restricted IV antimicrobials, (4) antimicrobial sensitivity profiles, and (5) MDR rate among hospital-acquired infections (MDR-HAI). Result: A ∼5.5-fold enhancement of the IV-to-oral switch and a 40% reduction in the overall consumption of restricted IV antimicrobials were observed. Regarding the cost, the cumulative cost saving was estimated as 5.64 million SAR (US$1.50 million). Microbiologically, no significant change in antimicrobial sensitivity profiles was observed; however, a large-size reduction in the MDR-HAI rate was observed, notably in ICU where it declined from 3.22 per 1,000 patient days, in 2015, to 1.14 per 1,000 patient days in 2020. Interestingly, the yearly overall MDR rate was strongly correlated with the level of antimicrobial consumption. Conclusion: The implementation of a multidisciplinary ASP in LTC facilities should be further encouraged, with emphasis on physicians' education and active involvement to enhance the success of the strategy.

In-vitro activity of ceftolozane/tazobactam against recent clinical bacterial isolates from two Saudi Arabian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is continuously increasing. Adding tazobactam to ceftolozane improves the latter's activity spectrum against resistant strains. We aimed to determine the susceptibility of recently collected bacterial isolates to ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) and other antibiotics. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted between March 2017 and March 2018. The in-vitro activities of C/T and 14 other antibiotics were assessed against 192 gram-negative bacterial (GNB) isolates (P. aeruginosa, K. pneumonia, E. coli, and other Enterobacterales) prospectively collected from two hospitals in Saudi arabia; in the laboratories of the International Health Management Associates Inc. Samples were obtained from intensive care units (ICUs) and non-ICU locations. The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of the antibiotics were determined by broth microdilution. Isolates were obtained from different infection sites [urine (31.8%), urinary bladder samples (15.1%), abscess/pus (20.3%), endotracheal aspirates (18.8%)]. RESULTS: Our sample showed substantial drug resistance; 66.1% of the collected isolates showed either multiple or extensive drug resistance. Susceptibility rates of P. aeruginosa (n = 50), E.coli (n = 40), K. pneumoniae (n = 64) and other Enterobacterales (n = 38) to C/T were 74%, 87.5%, 48.4% and 71.1%, respectively. According to MIC50 values (1 µg/mL for both P. aeruginosa and other Enterobacterales, 0.5 µg/mL for E.coli, and 4 µg/mL for K. pneumoniae), C/T was among the most potent antibiotics against these isolates. CONCLUSIONS: C/T displayed high potency against all examined bacterial isolates. It was mainly active against E.coli followed by P.aeruginosa and other Enterobacterales and its lowest susceptibility rate was reported against K. pneumoniae.

The Saudi Critical Care Society practice guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in the ICU: Therapy section.

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

Cervical Spinal Cord Injury During Prone Position Ventilation in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The prone positioning of patients experiencing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been proven effective in optimizing oxygenation and lung function. However, such patients may be at risk of developing complications due to the prolonged prone position in intensive critical care. A 45-year-old COVID-19 female, not known with cervical spine disease, presented with progressive severe COVID-19-related hypoxemia that required intensive care unit admission for pulmonary care. She was positioned prone and ventilated for several weeks. She developed a rapidly advanced decreased level of consciousness and flaccid quadriparesis. CT and MRI scans of the cervical spine revealed C4/C5 fracture-dislocation with spinal cord compression in asymptomatic ankylosing spondylitis and focal ossification of a posterior longitudinal ligament. In addition, the patient had severe ARDS-SARS-CoV-2 hemodynamic instability. Surgery was not performed due to her critical condition, and the patient died from multi-organ failure. Patients with underlying cervical spine disease or deformity can be subjected to hyperextension and develop fatigue (stress) spinal fracture, leading to spinal cord compression. To our knowledge, this is the first case of spontaneous cervical spine fracture dislocation in a COVID-19 patient after several weeks in prone position ventilation in ICU. Hence, our case report raises the awareness of the possibility of devastating spinal cord injuries in prone position ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for early screening using plain X-rays of these patients for cervical spine disease.

Awake Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients Without Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is used as rescue therapy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in whom conventional therapy has failed prior to an Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenator to rescue Lung Injury in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome trial. Since then, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been incorporated as part of the standard treatment algorithm in many centers for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 in early 2020, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been used effectively as rescue therapy and as a bridge to recovery in some patients with refractory respiratory failure. DESIGN SUBJECT AND INTERVENTION: We present a 38-year-old male healthcare worker diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 and progressed to critical condition with severe surgical emphysema on a high-flow nasal cannula with Fio2 100%, a flow of 40 L/min, and a maximum oxygen saturation of 88%. He was successfully treated by applying awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, without a need for invasive mechanical ventilation, to avoid worsening barotrauma and hemodynamic compromise potentially induced by positive pressure ventilation. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is one of the first cases to be reported in the literature on the use of awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a "treatment" for barotrauma due to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in a coronavirus disease 2019 patient, without the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. In selected patients with severe respiratory failure, awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation can be used as a salvage treatment and obviate the need for invasive mechanical ventilation.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus.

BACKGROUND: Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is caused by a coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and is characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure. The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of MERS-CoV patients before and after the availability of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue therapy in severely hypoxemic patients who failed conventional strategies. METHODS: We collected data retrospectively on MERS-CoV patients with refractory respiratory failure from April 2014 to December 2015 in 5 intensive care units (ICUs) in Saudi Arabia. Patients were classified into two groups: ECMO versus conventional therapy. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were included; 17 received ECMO and 18 received conventional therapy. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The ECMO group had lower in-hospital mortality (65 vs. 100%, P = 0.02), longer ICU stay (median 25 vs. 8 days, respectively, P < 0.01), and similar hospital stay (median 41 vs. 31 days, P = 0.421). In addition, patients in the ECMO group had better PaO2/FiO2 at days 7 and 14 of admission to the ICU (124 vs. 63, and 138 vs. 36, P < 0.05), and less use of norepinephrine at days 1 and 14 (29 vs. 80%; and 36 vs. 93%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ECMO use, as a rescue therapy, was associated with lower mortality in MERS patients with refractory hypoxemia. The results of this, largest to date, support the use of ECMO as a rescue therapy in patients with severe MERS-CoV.