Letter to the editor regarding Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1186/s13054-021-03702-6CRITICAL CARE25

Carditis following COVID-19 vaccination: balancing the risks and benefits

10.1016/j.lanwpc.2023.100765LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH-WESTERN PACIFIC3

Venovenous extracorporeal CO2 removal to support ultraprotective ventilation in moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature

Background: A strategy that limits tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures, improves outcomes in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) may facilitate ultra-protective ventilation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venovenous ECCO2R in supporting ultra-protective ventilation in moderate-to-severe ARDS.Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were interrogated for studies (2000–2021) reporting venovenous ECCO2R use in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Studies reporting ≥10 adult patients in English language journals were included. Ventilatory parameters after 24 h of initiating ECCO2R, device characteristics, and safety outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measure was the change in driving pressure at 24 h of ECCO2R therapy in relation to baseline. Secondary outcomes included change in tidal volume, gas exchange, and safety data. Results: Ten studies reporting 421 patients (PaO2:FiO2 141.03 mmHg) were included. Extracorporeal blood flow rates ranged from 0.35-1.5 L/min. Random effects modelling indicated a 3.56 cmH2O reduction (95%-CI: 3.22–3.91) in driving pressure from baseline (p p 2:FiO2 ratio were identified in metaregression analysis. Bleeding and haemolysis were the commonest complications of therapy.Conclusions: Venovenous ECCO2R permitted significant reductions in ∆P in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Heterogeneity amongst studies and devices, a paucity of randomised controlled trials, and variable safety reporting calls for standardisation of outcome reporting. Prospective evaluation of optimal device operation and anticoagulation in high quality studies is required before further recommendations can be made

Concurrent use of renal replacement therapy during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) often receive renal replacement therapy (RRT). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis (between January 2000 and September 2020) to assess outcomes in patients who received RRT on ECMO. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using R 3.6.1 and certainty of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The primary outcome was pooled mortality. The duration of ECMO support and ICU/hospital lengths of stay were also investigated. Meta-regression analyses identified factors associated with mortality. A total of 5896 adult patients (from 24 observational studies and 1 randomised controlled trial) were included in this review. Overall pooled mortality due to concurrent use of RRT while on ECMO from observational studies was 63.0% (95% CI: 56.0–69.6%). In patients receiving RRT, mortality decreased by 20% in the last five years; the mean duration of ECMO support and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were 9.33 days (95% CI: 7.74–10.92), 15.76 days (95% CI: 12.83–18.69) and 28.47 days (95% CI: 22.13–34.81), respectively, with an 81% increased risk of death (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.56–2.08, p < 0.001). RRT on ECMO was associated with higher mortality rates and a longer ICU/hospital stay compared to those without RRT. Future research should focus on minimizing renal dysfunction in ECMO patients and define the optimal timing of RRT initiation.</p

Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00059-5LANCET RESPIRATORY MEDICINE107679-68

Prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Prone positioning (PP) improves oxygenation and respiratory mechanics and is associated with lower mortality in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Despite this, some patients develop refractory hypoxemia and hypercapnia requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) support and are usually cared for in supine position. The physiologic and outcome benefits of routine PP of patients during VV ECMO remains unclear. Hence, we conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcome benefits of PP for patients with ARDS being treated with VV ECMO. Methods: After registration with PROSPERO (CRD42020199723), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies that reported PP in more than 10 adult patients supported with VV ECMO from origin to 1 March 2021. Studies were reviewed for quality using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) was used. The primary outcome of interest was cumulative survival. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) and ECMO duration. Changes in arterial blood gas (ABG) values, ventilator mechanics and complication rates were also studied. Results: Of 812 potentially relevant publications, 12 studies (640 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Due to overlapping study populations, 11 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Cumulative survival in patients that underwent PP was 57% (95% CI 41.9–71.4, high certainty). Patients that underwent PP had longer ICU LOS (+ 14.5 days, 95% CI 3.4–25.7, p = 0.01) and ECMO duration (+ 9.6 days, 95% CI 5.5–13.7, p 2/FiO2 ratio, lower PaCO2 and reduced ventilator driving pressure, and no major complications were reported. Conclusions: PP during VV ECMO appears safe with a cumulative survival of 57% and may result in longer ECMO runs and ICU LOS. However, evidence from appropriately designed randomized trials is needed prior to widespread adoption of PP on VV ECMO.</p

Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The association of respiratory mechanics, particularly respiratory system static compliance (CRS), with severity of hypoxaemia in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been widely debated, with some studies reporting distinct ARDS phenotypes based on CRS. Ascertaining whether such phenotypes exist is important, because they might indicate the need for ventilation strategies that differ from those used in patients with ARDS due to other causes. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between Dec 1, 2019, and March 14, 2022, we evaluated respiratory system mechanics, ventilator parameters, gas exchange parameters, and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Among 11 356 patients in 37 studies, mean reported CRS, measured close to the time of endotracheal intubation, was 35·8 mL/cm H2O (95% CI 33·9–37·8; I2=96·9%, τ2=32·6). Pooled mean CRS was normally distributed. Increasing ARDS severity (assessed by PaO2/FiO2 ratio as mild, moderate, or severe) was associated with decreasing CRS. We found no evidence for distinct CRS-based clinical phenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, and we therefore conclude that no change in conventional lung-protective ventilation strategies is warranted. Future studies should explore the personalisation of mechanical ventilation strategies according to factors including respiratory system mechanics and haemodynamic status in patients with ARDS.</p

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with cardiac arrest:a comparative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background: Although outcomes of patients after cardiac arrest remain poor, studies have suggested that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) might improve survival and neurological outcomes. We aimed to investigate any potential benefits of using ECPR over conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from Jan 1, 2000, to April 1, 2023, for randomised controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies. We included studies comparing ECPR with CCPR in adults (aged =18 years) with OHCA and IHCA. We extracted data from published reports using a prespecified data extraction form. We did random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We rated the risk of bias of randomised controlled trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool, and that of observational studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, short-term (from hospital discharge to 30 days after cardiac arrest) and long-term (=90 days after cardiac arrest) survival with favourable neurological outcomes (defined as cerebral performance category scores 1 or 2), and survival at 30 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after cardiac arrest. We also did trial sequential analyses to evaluate the required information sizes in the meta-analyses to detect clinically relevant reductions in mortality. Findings: We included 11 studies (4595 patients receiving ECPR and 4597 patients receiving CCPR) in the meta-analysis. ECPR was associated with a significant reduction in overall in-hospital mortality (OR 0·67, 95% CI 0·51–0·87; p=0·0034; high certainty), without evidence of publication bias (pegger=0·19); the trial sequential analysis was concordant with the meta-analysis. When considering IHCA only, in-hospital mortality was lower in patients receiving ECPR than in those receiving CCPR (0·42, 0·25–0·70; p=0·0009), whereas when considering OHCA only, no differences were found (0·76, 0·54–1·07; p=0·12). Centre volume (ie, the number of ECPR runs done per year in each centre) was associated with reductions in odds of mortality (regression coefficient per doubling of centre volume –0·17, 95% CI –0·32 to –0·017; p=0·030). ECPR was also associated with an increased rate of short-term (OR 1·65, 95% CI 1·02–2·68; p=0·042; moderate certainty) and long-term (2·04, 1·41–2·94; p=0·0001; high certainty) survival with favourable neurological outcomes. Additionally, patients receiving ECPR had increased survival at 30-day (OR 1·45, 95% CI 1·08–1·96; p=0·015), 3-month (3·98, 1·12–14·16; p=0·033), 6-month (1·87, 1·36–2·57; p=0·0001), and 1-year (1·72, 1·52–1·95; p&lt;0·0001) follow-ups. Interpretation: Compared with CCPR, ECPR reduced in-hospital mortality and improved long-term neurological outcomes and post-arrest survival, particularly in patients with IHCA. These findings suggest that ECPR could be considered for eligible patients with IHCA, although further research into patients with OHCA is warranted. Funding: None

Correction to: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis (Critical Care, (2021), 25, 1, (211), 10.1186/s13054-021-03634-1)

10.1186/s13054-021-03714-2Critical Care25137

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO. Results We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3–42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7–40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4–18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5–82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common. Conclusion The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627