Citations

OBJECTIVES: To provide a comparative analysis of conventional heparin-versus bivalirudin-based systemic anticoagulation in adult and pediatric patients supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review study of adult and pediatric patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation from January 1, 2014, to October 1, 2019. SETTING: A large, high-volume tertiary referral adult and pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center. PATIENTS: Four hundred twenty-four individuals requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support and systemically anticoagulated with either unfractionated heparin (223 adult and 65 pediatric patients) or bivalirudin (110 adult and 24 pediatric patients) were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Digital data abstraction was used to retrospectively collect patient details. The majority of both groups were cannulated centrally (67%), and the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation type was predominantly venoarterial (84%). The adult bivalirudin group had a greater occurrence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (12% vs 1%; p < 0.01) and was more likely to require postcardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (36% vs 55%; p < 0.01). There were no statistical differences between the groups in regards to age, sex, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation location. The main finding was a reduced mortality in the adult bivalirudin group (odds ratio, 0.39; p < 0.01), whereas no difference was noted in the pediatric group. A significant reduction in the composite transfusion requirement in the first 24 hours was noted in the pediatric bivaluridin group with an odds ratio of 0.28 (p = 0.02). Groups did not differ in regard to laboratories per day, anticoagulant dose adjustments, or ischemic complications. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with heparin-based systemic anticoagulation, bivalirudin demonstrated feasibility and safety as established by the absence of increases in identifiable adverse outcomes while manifesting substantial improvements in hospital mortality in adult patients. Further studies are necessary to corroborate these findings and further elucidate the role of bivalirudin during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.

BACKGROUND: Current mechanical ventilation practice and the use of treatment adjuncts in patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for refractory hypoxemia (RH) vary widely and their impact on outcomes remains unclear. In 2015, we implemented a standardized approach to protocolized ventilator settings and guide the escalation of adjunct therapies in patients with RH. This study aimed to investigate ICU mortality, its associated risk factors, and mechanical ventilation practice before and after the implementation of a standardized RH guideline in patients requiring venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO). METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing VV-ECMO due to RH respiratory failure between January 2008 and March 2015 (before RH protocol implementation) and between April 2015 and October 2019 (after RH protocol implementation). RESULTS: A total of 103 subjects receiving VV-ECMO for RH were analyzed. After implementation of the RH protocol, more subjects received prone positioning (6.7% vs 23.3%, P = .02), and fewer received high-frequency oscillatory ventilation than before launching the RH protocol (0% vs 13.3%, P = .01). Plateau pressure was also lower before initiation of ECMO ( P = .04) and at day 1 during ECMO ( P = .045). Driving pressure was consistently lower at days 1, 2, and 3 after ECMO initiation: median 13.0 (interquartile range [IQR] 10.6–18.0) vs 16.0 (IQR 14.0–20.0) cm H 2 O at day 1 ( P = .003); 13.0 (IQR 11.0–15.9) vs 15.5 (IQR 12.0–20.0) cm H 2 O at day 2 ( P = .03); and 12.0 (IQR 10.0–14.5) vs 15.0 (IQR 12.0–19.0) cm H 2 O at day 3 ( P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a standardized RH guideline improved compliance with a lung-protective ventilation strategy and utilization of the prone position and was associated with lower driving pressure during the first 3 days after ECMO initiation in subjects with refractory hypoxemia.

Abstract Background The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in critically ill adults is increasing. There are currently no guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis. We analyzed 7 years of prophylactic antimicrobial use across 3 time series for patients on ECMO at our institution in the development, improvement, and streamlining of our ECMO antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol. Methods In this quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis, we evaluated the impact of an initial ECMO antimicrobial prophylaxis protocol, implemented in 2014, on antimicrobial use and National Healthcare Safety Network–reportable infection rates. Then, following a revision and streamlining of the protocol in November 2018, we reevaluated the same metrics. Results Our study population included 338 intensive care unit patients who received ECMO between July 2011 and November 2019. After implementation of the first version of the protocol, we did not observe significant changes in antimicrobial use or infection rates in these patients; however, following revision and streamlining of the protocol, we demonstrated a significant reduction in broad-spectrum antimicrobial use for prophylaxis in patients on ECMO without any evidence of a compensatory increase in infection rates. Conclusions Our final protocol significantly reduces broad-spectrum antimicrobial use for prophylaxis in patients on ECMO. We propose a standard antimicrobial prophylaxis regimen for patients on ECMO based on current evidence and our experience. Summary: There are no guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A rational approach employing concepts of antimicrobial stewardship can drive logical antimicrobial selection for prophylaxis in patients on ECMO without adversely impacting outcomes.

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.

Utilization of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is expanding, but dual VA-ECMO circuits to treat cardiogenic shock with refractory hypoxemia is unreported. We describe the case of combined cardiogenic and distributive shock due to necrotizing pulmonary blastomycosis. After initial central VA-ECMO cannulation, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with increasing shunt resulted in significant central hypoxemia due to progressive ventilation-perfusion mismatch. An additional circuit provided complete oxygenation of the high circulating volume. After 4 months on support, he underwent successful heart-lung-kidney transplantation. Dual ECMO circuits are technically feasible and may be advantageous in specific circumstances of high pulmonary shunting resulting in excessive hypoxemia unbalanced with appropriate oxygen delivery.

BACKGROUND: ARDS remains a source of significant morbidity and mortality in the critically ill patient. The mainstay of therapy entails invasive mechanical ventilation utilizing a lung-protective strategy designed to limit lung injury associated with excessive stress and strain while the underlying etiology of respiratory failure is identified and treated. Less is understood about what to do once conventional ventilation parameters have been optimized but the patient's respiratory status remains unchanged or worsens. In 2015, a protocolized, stepwise approach to mechanical ventilation with partially automated and clearly defined thresholds for management changes was implemented at our institution. We hypothesized that, by identifying appropriate patients earlier, time-to-escalation and rescue therapy implementation would be shortened. METHODS: Subjects with severe ARDS, treated with prone positioning based on our institution's protocolized approach from December 2013 to August 2016 were included. Their baseline characteristics, severity of illness scores, and mechanical ventilation parameters were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, tidal volumes, P aO 2 / F IO 2 , duration of ventilation after proning, and mortality were similar in both groups. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) PEEP at the time of proning was higher after the protocol implementation (12.5 cm H 2 O [IQR 6.5–19.4] vs 18 cm H 2 O [IQR 10–22], P = .386), and mean (IQR) respiratory system driving pressure was lower (16 cm H 2 O [IQR 13–36.2] vs 12 cm H 2 O [IQR 9–19.6], P = .029). Median (IQR) time from refractory hypoxemia identification to proning was shorter after protocol implementation (42.2 h [IQR 6.83–347.2] vs 16.3 h [IQR 1–99.7], I = .02), and P aO 2 / F IO 2 at 1 h after proning was higher. ICU and hospital LOS were shorter after the protocol implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Following the implementation of an early, evidence-based, protocolized approach to optimizing mechanical ventilation, subjects with true refractory hypoxemia were identified earlier and time to proning was significantly shorter. Despite improvement in the evaluation and management of refractory hypoxemia as well as time to initiation of prone positioning, mortality was unchanged and there was variation in the duration of the position.