2
IRUS TotalDownloads
Altmetric
A comparison of long-term outcomes in patients managed with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom..
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Main text (Autosaved) revision[98].docx | Accepted version | 182.51 kB | Microsoft Word | View/Open |
Title: | A comparison of long-term outcomes in patients managed with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.. |
Authors: | Garfield, BE Bianchi, P Arachchillage, DJ Caetano, F Desai, S Doyle, J Hernandez Caballero, C Doyle, A-M Mehta, S Law, A Jaggar, S Kokosi, M Molyneaux, PL Passariello, M Naja, M Ridge, C Alçada, J Patel, B Singh, S Ledot, S |
Item Type: | Journal Article |
Abstract: | OBJECTIVES: Early studies of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 have revealed similar outcomes to historical cohorts. Changes in the disease and treatments have led to differences in the patients supported on venovenous ECMO in the first and second waves. We aimed to compare these two groups in both the acute and follow-up phase. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center cohort study comparing mortality at censoring date (November 30, 2021) and decannulation, patient characteristics, complications and lung function and quality of life (QOL-by European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version) at first follow-up in patients supported on venovenous ECMO between wave 1 and wave 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Critical care department of a severe acute respiratory failure service. PATIENTS: Patients supported on ECMO for COVID-19 between wave 1 (March 17, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and wave 2 (January 9, 2020, to May 25, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three patients were included in our analysis. Survival at censoring date (χ2, 6.35; p = 0.012) and decannulation (90.4% vs 70.0%; p < 0.001) was significantly lower in the second wave, while duration of ECMO run was longer (12.0 d [18.0-30.0 d] vs 29.5 d [15.5-58.3 d]; p = 0.005). Wave 2 patients had longer application of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) prior to ECMO and a higher frequency of barotrauma. Patient age and NIV use were independently associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.07 [1.01-1.14]; p = 0.025 and 3.37 [1.12-12.60]; p = 0.043, respectively). QOL and lung function apart from transfer coefficient of carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin was similar at follow-up across the waves. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with COVID-19 supported on ECMO in both waves survived in the short and longer term. At follow-up patients had similar lung function and QOL across the two waves. This suggests that ECMO has an ongoing role in the management of a carefully selected group of patients with COVID-19. |
Issue Date: | 5-Apr-2023 |
Date of Acceptance: | 1-Aug-2023 |
URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/105415 |
DOI: | 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005864 |
ISSN: | 0090-3493 |
Publisher: | Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins |
Start Page: | 1064 |
End Page: | 1073 |
Journal / Book Title: | Critical Care Medicine |
Volume: | 51 |
Issue: | 8 |
Copyright Statement: | Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
Publication Status: | Published online |
Conference Place: | United States |
Online Publication Date: | 2023-08-01 |
Appears in Collections: | Department of Immunology and Inflammation Department of Surgery and Cancer National Heart and Lung Institute Faculty of Medicine Imperial College London COVID-19 |