Citations

As the availability of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) expands, so has the need for interfacility transfer to ECMO centers. However, the impact of these transfers is unknown. We hypothesized that interfacility transfers would be associated with increased complications and mortality. This retrospective cohort study includes adult patients treated with venovenous (VV) ECMO at all four adult ECMO centers comprising our statewide registry. Complications, mortality, ECMO duration, length of stay, and disposition were compared based on cannulation at an ECMO center versus outside hospital and transferred by air versus ground after adjusting for baseline covariates/parameters. The study included 420 adult patients, 36% of whom were cannulated at an outside institution before transfer. Of these, 63% were transported by ground and the remainder by air. Risk adjusted logistic regression revealed similar odds of mortality between those cannulated at ECMO centers versus referring hospital and then transported (odds ratio [OR] = 0.77, confidence interval [CI] = 0.49–1.22). This study supports the practice of interfacility ECMO transfer.

Background: Patients with fungal pneumonias sometimes progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Mortality has been reported as high as 60% to 90% in this group. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) can be used to support such patients, however, outcomes are not well understood. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective study across the four adult ECMO centers in Minnesota for one decade (2012–2022). The outcomes of interest were duration of ECMO, survival rate, and complications. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Fungal pneumonia was the etiology of ARDS in 22 of 422 (5%) adults supported with VV-ECMO during the 10-year study period. Median patient age was 43 years (interquartile range [IQR], 35–56) and 68% were male. By type of fungal infection, 16 (72%) had blastomycosis, five (22%) had pneumocystis, and one (5%) had cryptococcus. Of the 16 patients with blastomycosis two were immunosuppressed whereas all five of the pneumocystis patients were immunosuppressed. The overall survival rate was 73%; most patients with blastomycosis (67%) and pneumocystis (80%) survived to hospital discharge. The duration of ECMO support was greater for the pneumocystis group (median, 30 days; IQR, 21–43) compared with blastomycosis (median, 10 days; IQR, 8–18). Conclusions: Our findings support the use of VV-ECMO for ARDS caused by fungal pneumonias in select immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. Although survival was high, patients with pneumocystis required longer ECMO runs.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the factors associated with mortality in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) patients with COVID-19 infection and provide an updated report of clinical outcomes for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19 in Minnesota. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective observational study. SETTING: The four adult Extracorporeal Life Support Organization–certified Centers of Excellence in Minnesota. PATIENTS: A total of 100 patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19–associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from March 2020 to May 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 60-day survival for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19. Outcomes of patients treated from November 2020 to May 2021(cohort 2) were compared with data from a previous cohort of patients, collected from March 2020 to October 2020 (cohort 1). The data from both cohorts were merged into a single dataset (Combined Cohort). Survival on V-V ECMO due to COVID-19–associated ARDS significantly decreased after October 2020 (63% vs 41%; p = 0.026). The median interval from hospital admission to V-V ECMO cannulation was significantly associated with 60-day mortality (10 d [6–14 d] in nonsurvivors vs 7 d [4–9 d] in survivors; p = 0.001) in the Combined Cohort and was also significantly longer in cohort 2 than cohort 1 (10 d [7–14 d] vs 6 d [4–10 d]; p < 0.001). In the Combined Cohort, the 60-day survival for patients who did not receive steroids was 86% (n = 12) versus 45% (n = 39) for patients who received at least one dose of steroids (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in mortality for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19–associated ARDS in cohort 2 compared with cohort 1. Further research is required to determine the cause of the worsening trend in mortality.

Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unresponsive to conventional intensive care unit (ICU) management is an accepted indication for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) support. The frequency with which patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are selected for V-V ECMO has not been described. This was a cohort study including all patients placed on either V-V ECMO or venoarteriovenous ECMO at the four adult ECMO Centers of Excellence. Primary outcomes evaluated were survival to decannulation from the ECMO circuit, survival to discharge, and 60-day survival. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, length of ECMO cannulation, and length of intubation. During the study period, which corresponded to the first surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations in Minnesota, 35 patients with ARDS were selected for V-V ECMO support out of 1,849 adult ICU patients with COVID-19 infection in the state (1.9% incidence; 95% CI, 1.3–2.6%). This represents 46 (95% CI, 34–61) expected V-V ECMO patients per 100,000 confirmed positive cases of COVID-19. Twenty-six of the 35 patients (74.3%) supported with V-V ECMO survived to 60-day post-ECMO decannulation. Recent studies have demonstrated ongoing success rescuing patients with severe ARDS in COVID-19 infection. Our data add to the support of ECMO and the consideration for encouraging cooperation among regional ECMO centers to ensure access to this highest level of care. Finally, by evaluating all the patients of a single region, we estimate overall need for this resource intensive intervention based on the overall number of COVID-19 cases and ICU admissions.