Outcomes With Single-Site Dual-Lumen Versus Multisite Cannulation for Adults With COVID-19 Respiratory Failure Receiving Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether multisite versus single-site dual-lumen (SSDL) cannulation is associated with outcomes for COVID-19 patients requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. Propensity score matching (2:1 multisite vs SSDL) was used to control for confounders. PATIENTS: The matched cohort included 2,628 patients (1,752 multisite, 876 SSDL) from 170 centers. The mean ( sd ) age in the entire cohort was 48 (11) years, and 3,909 (71%) were male. Patients were supported with mechanical ventilation for a median (interquartile range) of 79 (113) hours before VV-ECMO support. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 90-day survival. Secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, duration of ECMO support, days free of ECMO support at 90 days, and complication rates. MAIN RESULTS: There was no difference in 90-day survival (49.4 vs 48.9%, p = 0.66), survival to hospital discharge (49.8 vs 48.2%, p = 0.44), duration of ECMO support (17.9 vs 17.1 d, p = 0.82), or hospital length of stay after cannulation (28 vs 27.4 d, p = 0.37) between multisite and SSDL groups. More SSDL patients were extubated within 24 hours (4% vs 1.9%, p = 0.001). Multisite patients had higher ECMO flows at 24 hours (4.5 vs 4.1 L/min, p < 0.001) and more ECMO-free days at 90 days (3.1 vs 2.0 d, p = 0.02). SSDL patients had higher rates of pneumothorax (13.9% vs 11%, p = 0.03). Cannula site bleeding (6.4% vs 4.7%, p = 0.03), oxygenator failure (16.7 vs 13.4%, p = 0.03), and circuit clots (5.5% vs 3.4%, p = 0.02) were more frequent in multisite patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study of COVID-19 patients requiring VV-ECMO, 90-day survival did not differ between patients treated with a multisite versus SSDL cannulation strategy and there were only modest differences in major complication rates. These findings do not support the superiority of either cannulation strategy in this setting.

Prospective Observational Study Comparing Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 Definitions in Predicting Mortality in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis definitions have evolved, but there is a lack of consensus over adoption of the most recent definition, Sepsis-3. We sought to compare Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 in the classification of patients with sepsis and mortality risk at 30 days. METHODS: We used the following definitions: Sepsis-2 (≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria + infection), Sepsis-3 (prescreening by quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [qSOFA] of ≥2 of 3 criteria followed by the complete score change ≥2 + infection), and an amended Sepsis-3 definition, iqSOFA (qSOFA ≥2 + infection). We used χ 2 or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, receiver-operator characteristic curves, and survival analysis. RESULTS: We enrolled 176 patients (95% in an intensive care unit, 38.6% female, median age 61.4 years). Of 105 patients classified by Sepsis-2 as having sepsis, 80 had sepsis per Sepsis-3 or iqSOFA (kappa = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.82). Twenty-five (14.8%) died (20 of 100 with sepsis per Sepsis-2 [20%], and 20 of 77 [26.0%] with sepsis per Sepsis-3 or iqSOFA). Results for Sepsis-3 and iqSOFA were identical. The area under the curve of receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves for identifying those who died were 0.54 (95% CI, 0.41-0.68) for Sepsis-2, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.74-0.93) for Sepsis-3, and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.79) for iqSOFA (P < .01). Hazard ratios for death associated with sepsis were greatest for sepsis or septic shock per Sepsis-3. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis-3 and iqSOFA were better at predicting death than Sepsis-2. Using the SOFA score might add little advantage compared with the simpler iqSOFA score.