» Articles » PMID: 38882376

Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Before Veno-Venous ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Covid-19 Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Experience of a Tertiary Care Center

Overview
Journal Heliyon
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2024 Jun 17
PMID 38882376
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an efficient ventilatory support in patients with refractory Covid-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), however the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) before ECMO initiation as a contraindication is still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of prolonged IMV prior to VV-ECMO in patients suffering from refractory Covid-19-related ARDS.

Methods: This single-center retrospective study included all patients treated with VV-ECMO for refractory Covid-19-related ARDS between January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2022. The impact of IMV duration was investigated by comparing patients on VV-ECMO during the 7 days (and 10 days) following IMV with those assisted after 7 days (and 10 days). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality.

Results: Sixty-four patients were hospitalized in the ICU for Covid-19-related refractory ARDS requiring VV-ECMO. Global in-hospital mortality was 55 %. Median duration of IMV was 4 [2; 8] days before VV-ECMO initiation. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients assisted with IMV pre-VV-ECMO for a duration of ≤7 days (≤10 days) and those assisted after 7 days (and 10 days) (( = 0.59 and  = 0.45).

Conclusion: This study suggests that patients assisted with VV-ECMO after prolonged IMV had the same prognosis than those assisted earlier in refractory Covid-19-related ARDS. Therefore, prolonged mechanical ventilation of more than 7-10 days should not contraindicate VV-ECMO support. An individual approach is necessary to balance the risks and benefits of ECMO in this population.

References
1.
Lebreton G, Schmidt M, Ponnaiah M, Folliguet T, Para M, Guihaire J . Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation network organisation and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Greater Paris, France: a multicentre cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021; 9(8):851-862. PMC: 8055207. DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00096-5. View

2.
Jounieaux V, Rodenstein D, Mahjoub Y . On Happy Hypoxia and on Sadly Ignored "Acute Vascular Distress Syndrome" in Patients with COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020; 202(11):1598-1599. PMC: 7706160. DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202006-2521LE. View

3.
Grasselli G, Calfee C, Camporota L, Poole D, Amato M, Antonelli M . ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies. Intensive Care Med. 2023; 49(7):727-759. PMC: 10354163. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-023-07050-7. View

4.
Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, Busana M, Romitti F, Brazzi L . COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes?. Intensive Care Med. 2020; 46(6):1099-1102. PMC: 7154064. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06033-2. View

5.
Le Pape S, Savart S, Arrive F, Frat J, Ragot S, Coudroy R . High-flow nasal cannula oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intensive Care. 2023; 13(1):114. PMC: 10667189. DOI: 10.1186/s13613-023-01208-8. View