Clinical characteristics and outcomes of five critical COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Leishenshan Hospital in Wuhan

Xuan, Weimin; Chen, Cai–Yang; Jiang, Xuliang; Zhang, Xiao; Zhu, Hongying; Zhang, Song; Yu, Weifeng; Peng, Zhiyong; Su, Diansan

doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110033

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patients with ARDS and requirement for respiratory support need urgently to be transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). It is reported that nasal cannula or mask, high-flow nasal cannula, non-invasive ventilation (NIV), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) were widely used in COVID-19 according to the severity of respiratory dysfunction (2)(3)(4). Cardiac injury is common in COVID-19, with an incidence of 36% and closely related to a higher risk of mortality (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mortality and Clinical Interventions in Critically ill Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Qian

Luo

et al. 2021

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the current existing evidence on the outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19 as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions.Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, Web of Science, the China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data from their inception to May 15, 2021. The search strings consisted of various search terms related to the concepts of mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions.Study Selection: After eliminating duplicates, two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts first, and then the full texts of potentially relevant articles were reviewed to identify cohort studies and case series that focus on the mortality of critically ill patients and clinical interventions.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19. The secondary outcomes included all sorts of supportive care.Results: There were 27 cohort studies and six case series involving 42,219 participants that met our inclusion criteria. All-cause mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) was 35% and mortality in hospital was 32% in critically ill patients with COVID-19 for the year 2020, with very high between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 97%; p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis, the mortality during ICU hospitalization in China was 39%, in Asia—except for China—it was 48%, in Europe it was 34%, in America it was 15%, and in the Middle East it was 39%. Non-surviving patients who had an older age [−8.10, 95% CI (−9.31 to −6.90)], a higher APACHE II score [−4.90, 95% CI (−6.54 to −3.27)], a higher SOFA score [−2.27, 95% CI (−2.95 to −1.59)], and a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio [34.77, 95% CI (14.68 to 54.85)] than those who survived. Among clinical interventions, invasive mechanical ventilation [risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% CI (0.39–0.61)], kidney replacement therapy [RR 0.34, 95% CI (0.26–0.43)], and vasopressor [RR 0.54, 95% CI (0.34–0.88)] were used more in surviving patients.Conclusions: Mortality was high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 based on low-quality evidence and regional difference that existed. The early identification of critical characteristics and the use of support care help to indicate the outcome of critically ill patients.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mortality and Clinical Interventions in Critically ill Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Qian

Luo

et al. 2021

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, the data source was considered unreliable. As a possible population overlap was identified in 22 articles 13,31,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] (Table S1), only the most recent or complete studies reporting the larger cohorts of patients were included. 13,33,34,[36][37][38][39][40]48 As one of the included study reports data from the ELSO registry accounting for 213 contributing centers worldwide (Figure 2), it was not possible to exclude with certainty the presence of a partial overlap with other selected studies published by centers contributing to the ELSO registry.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review of literature

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) cases. While veno‐venous extracorporeal life support (V‐V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID‐19 patients. Methods PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID‐19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow‐up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation‐to‐cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors. Results Twenty‐eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS‐only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID‐19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7–57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V‐V ECLS, 4.7% on veno‐arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V‐V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9–16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V‐V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy‐right ventricular assist device. Conclusion MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID‐19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID‐19.

show abstract

Mapping Effective Practices and Frameworks During the AEC Industry’s Combat with COVID-19: Scientometric Analysis

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of five critical COVID-19 patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Leishenshan Hospital in Wuhan

Abstract: Highlights Providing early ECMO support due to carbon dioxide retention and on-time decannulation may be more beneficial to patients. The duration from tracheal intubation to ECMO cannulation was more than 7 days in some patients. The application rules of ECMO vary in different regions.

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Mortality and Clinical Interventions in Critically ill Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mortality and Clinical Interventions in Critically ill Patient With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review of literature

Mapping Effective Practices and Frameworks During the AEC Industry’s Combat with COVID-19: Scientometric Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About