Targeting of household air pollution: interpretation of RESPIRE

An estimated 3 million infants and children younger than 5 years die every year from pneumonia in developing countries.1 Exposure to household air pollution emitted from biomass fuels has been implicated in about a third of these cases.2 Observational and case-control studies have reported an association between exposure to household air pollution and lower respiratory tract infections.3 However, until now, no randomised controlled intervention trials had been done in children. In The Lancet, Kirk R Smith and colleagues of the Randomised Exposure Study of Pollution Indoors and Respiratory Effects (RESPIRE) report a randomised trial that aimed to reduce household air pollution and its subsequent effects on early childhood pneumonia. 4 The RESPIRE trial, which was undertaken in the Guatemalan highlands from 2002–04, introduced chimney stoves (planchas) in homes using traditional wood fires for cooking. 534 homes with pregnant women or infants younger than 4 months were randomly assigned to either planchas or control (traditional wood fires); the primary outcome was the reduction of physician-diagnosed pneumonia in children with use of standardised criteria. Study participants were followed up until 18 months of age, with weekly visits by fieldworkers, and subsequent referral to local physicians who were masked to intervention status for the assessment and diagnosis of pneumonia

Early mobilization of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction: Critical illness is a well-recognized cause of neuromuscular weakness and impaired physical functioning. Physical therapy (PT) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for critically ill patients. The impact of such an intervention on patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has not been well characterized. We describe the feasibility and impact of active PT on ECMO patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 100 consecutive patients receiving ECMO in the medical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Results: Of the 100 patients receiving ECMO, 35 (35%) participated in active PT; 19 as bridge to transplant and 16 as bridge to recovery. Duration of ECMO was 14.3 ± 10.9 days. Patients received 7.2 ± 6.5 PT sessions while on ECMO. During PT sessions, 18 patients (51%) ambulated (median distance 175 feet, range 4 to 2,800) and 9 patients were on vasopressors. Whilst receiving ECMO, 23 patients were liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation. Of the 16 bridge to recovery patients, 14 (88%) survived to discharge; 10 bridge to transplant patients (53%) survived to transplantation, with 9 (90%) surviving to discharge. Of the 23 survivors, 13 (57%) went directly home, 8 (35%) went to acute rehabilitation, and 2 (9%) went to subacute rehabilitation. There were no PT-related complications. Conclusions: Active PT, including ambulation, can be achieved safely and reliably in ECMO patients when an experienced, multidisciplinary team is utilized. More research is needed to define the barriers to PT and the impact on survival and long-term functional, neurocognitive outcomes in this population

The Evolution of the Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Respiratory Failure

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used with increasing frequency to support patients with acute respiratory failure, most commonly, and severe forms of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The marked increase in the global use of ECMO followed the publication of a large randomized trial in 2009 and the experience garnered during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, and has been further supported by the release of a large, randomized clinical trial in 2018, confirming a benefit from using ECMO in patients with severe ARDS. Despite a rapid expansion of ECMO-related publications, optimal management of patients receiving ECMO, in terms of patient selection, ventilator management, anticoagulation, and transfusion strategies, is evolving. Most recently, ECMO is being utilized for an expanding variety of conditions, including for cases of severe pulmonary or cardiac failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review evaluates modern evidence for ECMO for respiratory failure and the current challenges in the field

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to rescue sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock: a retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study

International audienceBackground: Patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy with cardiogenic shock have a high mortality. This study assessed venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional treatments.Methods: In this retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study, we compared outcomes of 82 patients (aged ≥18 years) with septic shock who received VA-ECMO at five academic ECMO centres, with 130 controls (not receiving ECMO) obtained from three large databases of septic shock. All patients had severe myocardial dysfunction (cardiac index 3 L/min per m2 or less or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% or less) and severe haemodynamic compromise (inotrope score at least 75 μg/kg per min or lactic acidaemia at least 4 mmol/L) at time of inclusion. The primary endpoint was survival at 90 days. A propensity score-weighted analysis was done to control for confounders.Findings: At baseline, patients treated with VA-ECMO had more severe myocardial dysfunction (mean cardiac index 1·5 L/min per m2vs 2·2 L/min per m2, LVEF 17% vs 27%), more severe haemodynamic impairment (inotrope score 279 μg/kg per min vs 145 μg/kg per min, lactataemia 8·9 mmol/L vs 6·5 mmol/L), and more severe organ failure (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 17 vs 13) than did controls, with p<0·0001 for each comparison. Survival at 90 days for patients treated with VA-ECMO was significantly higher than for controls (60% vs 25%, risk ratio [RR] for mortality 0·54, 95% CI [0·40-0·70]; p<0·0001). After propensity score weighting, ECMO remained associated with improved survival (51% vs 14%, adjusted RR for mortality 0·57, 95% CI [0·35-0·93]; p=0·0029). Lactate and catecholamine clearance were also significantly enhanced in patients treated with ECMO. Among the 49 survivors treated with ECMO, 32 who had been treated at the largest centre reported satisfactory Short Form-36 evaluated health-related quality of life at 1-year follow-up.Interpretation: Patients with severe sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO had a large and significant improvement in survival compared with controls not receiving ECMO. However, despite the careful propensity-weighted analysis, we cannot rule out unmeasured confounders.Funding: None

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: evolving outcomes from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres—ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020—we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups. FINDINGS: In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1–39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0–53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4–62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70−0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17−1·73]). INTERPRETATION: Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. FUNDING: None

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19:Updated 2021 Guidelines from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization

Disclaimer: This is an updated guideline from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) for the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The great majority of COVID-19 patients (>90%) requiring ECMO have been supported using venovenous (V-V) ECMO for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). While COVID-19 ECMO run duration may be longer than in non-COVID-19 ECMO patients, published mortality appears to be similar between the two groups. However, data collection is ongoing, and there is a signal that overall mortality may be increasing. Conventional selection criteria for COVID-19-related ECMO should be used; however, when resources become more constrained during a pandemic, more stringent contraindications should be implemented. Formation of regional ECMO referral networks may facilitate communication, resource sharing, expedited patient referral, and mobile ECMO retrieval. There are no data to suggest deviation from conventional ECMO device or patient management when applying ECMO for COVID-19 patients. Rarely, children may require ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS, myocarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C); conventional selection criteria and management practices should be the standard. We strongly encourage participation in data submission to investigate the optimal use of ECMO for COVID-19

Latent Class Analysis Reveals COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Subgroups with Differential Responses to Corticosteroids.

Rationale: Two distinct subphenotypes have been identified in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the presence of subgroups in ARDS associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is unknown. Objectives: To identify clinically relevant, novel subgroups in COVID-19-related ARDS and compare them with previously described ARDS subphenotypes. Methods: Eligible participants were adults with COVID-19 and ARDS at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups with baseline clinical, respiratory, and laboratory data serving as partitioning variables. A previously developed machine learning model was used to classify patients as the hypoinflammatory and hyperinflammatory subphenotypes. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between subgroups. Heterogeneity of treatment effect for corticosteroid use in subgroups was tested. Measurements and Main Results: From March 2, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 483 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS met study criteria. A two-class latent class analysis model best fit the population (P = 0.0075). Class 2 (23%) had higher proinflammatory markers, troponin, creatinine, and lactate, lower bicarbonate, and lower blood pressure than class 1 (77%). Ninety-day mortality was higher in class 2 versus class 1 (75% vs. 48%; P &lt; 0.0001). Considerable overlap was observed between these subgroups and ARDS subphenotypes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR cycle threshold was associated with mortality in the hypoinflammatory but not the hyperinflammatory phenotype. Heterogeneity of treatment effect to corticosteroids was observed (P = 0.0295), with improved mortality in the hyperinflammatory phenotype and worse mortality in the hypoinflammatory phenotype, with the caveat that corticosteroid treatment was not randomized. Conclusions: We identified two COVID-19-related ARDS subgroups with differential outcomes, similar to previously described ARDS subphenotypes. SARS-CoV-2 PCR cycle threshold had differential value for predicting mortality in the subphenotypes. The subphenotypes had differential treatment responses to corticosteroids

Position Paper on Global ECMO Education and Educational Agenda for the Future: A Statement from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization ECMOed Taskforce

This is the author accepted version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000004158. Copyright © 2020 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Objective The purpose of this position paper is two-fold: first, to describe the state of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) education worldwide, noting current limitations and challenges; and second, to put forth an educational agenda regarding opportunities for an international collaborative approach towards standardization. Design and Setting In 2018, the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Education (ECMOed) Taskforce organized two structured, face-to-face meetings and conducted a review of published literature on ECMO education. Taskforce members generated a consensus statement using an iterative consensus process through teleconferences and electronic communication. Measurements and Main Results The ECMOed Taskforce identified seven educational domains that would benefit from international collaborative efforts. Of primary importance, the taskforce outlined actionable items regarding: (1) the creation of a standardized ECMO curriculum; (2) defining criteria for an ECMO course as a vehicle for delivering the curriculum; (3) outlining a mechanism for evaluating the quality of educational offerings; (4) utilizing validated assessment tools in the development of ECMO practitioner certification; and (5) promoting high-quality educational research to guide ongoing educational and competency assessment development. Conclusions Significant variability and limitations in global ECMO education exist. In this position paper, we outline a road map for standardizing international ECMO education and practitioner certification. Ongoing high-quality educational research is needed to evaluate the impact of these initiatives.Peer reviewe

Transfusion practice in patients receiving VV ECMO (PROTECMO): a prospective, multicentre, observational study

BACKGROUND: In patients receiving venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion thresholds are usually higher than in other patients who are critically ill. Available guidelines suggest a restrictive approach, but do not provide specific recommendations on the topic. The main aim of this study was, in a short timeframe, to describe the actual values of haemoglobin and the rate and the thresholds for transfusion of PRBC during VV ECMO. METHODS: PROTECMO was a multicentre, prospective, cohort study done in 41 ECMO centres in Europe, North America, Asia, and Australia. Consecutive adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were receiving VV ECMO were eligible for inclusion. Patients younger than 18 years, those who were not able to provide informed consent when required, and patients with an ECMO stay of less than 24 h were excluded. Our main aim was to monitor the daily haemoglobin concentration and the value at the point of PRBC transfusion, as well as the rate of transfusions. The practice in different centres was stratified by continent location and case volume per year. Adjusted estimates were calculated using marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting, accounting for baseline and time varying confounding. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2018, and Feb 22, 2021, 604 patients were enrolled (431 [71%] men, 173 [29%] women; mean age 50 years [SD 13·6]; and mean haemoglobin concentration at cannulation 10·9 g/dL [2·4]). Over 7944 ECMO days, mean haemoglobin concentration was 9·1 g/dL (1·2), with lower concentrations in North America and high-volume centres. PRBC were transfused on 2432 (31%) of days on ECMO, and 504 (83%) patients received at least one PRBC unit. Overall, mean pretransfusion haemoglobin concentration was 8·1 g/dL (1·1), but varied according to the clinical rationale for transfusion. In a time-dependent Cox model, haemoglobin concentration of less than 7 g/dL was consistently associated with higher risk of death in the intensive care unit compared with other higher haemoglobin concentrations (hazard ratio [HR] 2·99 [95% CI 1·95-4·60]); PRBC transfusion was associated with lower risk of death only when transfused when haemoglobin concentration was less than 7 g/dL (HR 0·15 [0·03-0·74]), although no significant effect in reducing mortality was reported for transfusions for other haemoglobin classes (7·0-7·9 g/dL, 8·0-9·9 g/dL, or higher than 10 g/dL). INTERPRETATION: During VV ECMO, there was no universally accepted threshold for transfusion, but PRBC transfusion was invariably associated with lower mortality only when done with haemoglobin concentration of less than 7 g/dL. FUNDING: Extracorporeal Life Support Organization