Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support under extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is the last option and may be offered to selected patients. Several factors predict outcome in these patients, including initial heart rhythm, comorbidities, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We evaluated outcomes of all VA-ECMO patients treated within the last 5 years at our center in respect to low-flow duration during CPR. We report retrospective registry data on all patients with eCPR treated at a university hospital between October 2010 and May 2016. A total of 133 patients (mean age 58.7 ± 2.6 years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II score at admission 48.1 ± 3.4) were included in the analysis. The indication for eCPR was either in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without return of spontaneous circulation (n = 74 and 59, respectively). There was a significant difference in survival rates between groups (eCPR in-hospital cardiac arrest [IHCA] 18.9%, eCPR out-of-hospital cardiac arrest [OHCA] 8.5%; p < 0.042). Mean low-flow duration (i.e., duration of mechanical CPR until VA-ECMO support) was 59.6 ± 5.0 minutes in all patients and significantly shorter in IHCA patients than in OHCA patients (49.6 ± 5.9 vs. 72.2 ± 7.4 minutes, p = 0.001). Low-flow time strongly correlated with survival (p < 0.001) and was an independent predictor of mortality. Time to full support is an important and alterable predictor of patient survival in eCPR, suggesting that VA-ECMO therapy should be established as fast as possible in the selected patients destined for eCPR.

Aims: Several scoring systems have been introduced for prognostication after initiating venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) therapy. However, static scores offer limited guidance once VA-ECMO is implanted, although continued allocation of healthcare resources is critical. Patients requiring continued VA-ECMO support are extremely unstable, with minimal heart function and multi-organ failure in most cases. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a dynamic prognostic model for patients treated with VA-ECMO. Methods and results: A derivation cohort included 205 all-comers undergoing VA-ECMO implantation at a tertiary referral hospital (51% received VA-ECMO during resuscitation and 43% had severe shock). Two prediction models based on point-of-care biomarkers were developed using penalised logistic regression in an elastic net approach. A validation cohort was recruited from an independent tertiary referral hospital. Comparators for the prediction of hospital survival were the SAVE score (area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.686), the SAPS score (AUC 0.679), the APACHE score (AUC 0.662) and the SOFA score (AUC 0.732) in 6-hour survivors. The 6-hour PREDICT VA-ECMO score (based on lactate, pH and standard bicarbonate concentration) outperformed the comparator scores with an AUC of 0.823. The 12-hour PREDICT VA-ECMO integrated lactate, pH and standard bicarbonate concentration at 1 hour, 6 hours and 12 hours after ECMO insertion allowed even better prognostication (AUC 0.839). Performance of the scores in the external validation cohort was good (AUCs 0.718 for the 6-hour score and 0.735 for the 12-hour score, respectively). Conclusion: In patients requiring VA-ECMO therapy, a dynamic score using three point-of-care biomarkers predicts hospital mortality with high reliability. Furthermore, the PREDICT scores are the first scores for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients.

Background: SARS-CoV2 can cause pulmonary failure requiring prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Lung protective ventilation strategies are recommended in order to minimize ventilator induced lung injury. Whether patients with COVID-19 have the same risk for complications including barotrauma is still unknown. Therefore, we investigated barotrauma in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring prolonged MV. Methods: All patients meeting diagnosis criteria for ARDS according to the Berlin Definition, with PCR positive SARS-CoV2 infection and prolonged mechanical ventilation, defined as ≥2 days, treated at our ARDS referral center between March and April 2020 were included in a retrospective registry analysis. Complications were detected by manual review of all patient data including respiratory data, imaging studies, and patient files. Results: A total of 20 patients with severe COVID-19 pulmonary failure (Overall characteristics: median age: 61 years, female gender 6, median duration of MV 22 days) were analyzed. Eight patients (40%) developed severe barotrauma during MV (after median 18 days, range: 1-32) including pneumothorax (5/20), pneumomediastinum (5/20), pneumopericard (1/20), and extended subcutaneous emphysema (5/20). Median respirator settings 24 hours before barotrauma were: Peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak) 29 cm H2O (range: 27-35), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 14 cm H2O (range: 5-24), tidal volume (VT) 5.4ml/kg predicted body weight (range 0.4-8.6), plateau pressure (Pplateau) 27 cm H2O (range: 19-30). Mechanical ventilation was significantly more invasive on several occasions in patients without barotrauma. Conclusion: Barotrauma in COVID-19 induced respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation was found in 40% of patients included in this registry. Our data suggest that barotrauma in COVID-19 may occur even when following recommendations for lung protective MV.

When conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) cannot restore spontaneous circulation, the initiation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during refractory cardiac arrest-known as extracorporeal CPR (ECPR)-might restore circulation and adequate tissue oxygenation. ECPR could substantially improve survival with favourable functional recovery. However, the complexity and time-sensitive nature of the intervention, high costs, resource demands, considerable risks, and complications restrict the availability of ECPR. Patient age and comorbidities, timely and effective CCPR, and time-to-ECPR are major contributors to the outcome of patients. The primary goal of ECPR is full recovery of the patient, but in some cases, transition to a long-term ventricular assist device or heart transplantation can be additional options for survival. In patients diagnosed with brain death or, according to local regulation, in those with irreversible post-anoxic brain damage, organ donation is possible after ECPR. Ongoing research aims to assess the efficacy of ECPR versus continued CCPR and uncover key prognostic indicators.

The role of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (V-V ECMO) in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still under debate and conclusive data from large cohorts are scarce. Furthermore, criteria for the selection of patients that benefit most from this highly invasive and resource-demanding therapy are yet to be defined. In this study, we assess survival in an international multicenter cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO and evaluate the performance of several clinical scores to predict 30-day survival. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated retrospective non-interventional international multicenter registry study (NCT04405973, first registered 28 May 2020). In 127 patients treated with V-V ECMO at 15 centers in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and the United States, we calculated the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score, Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) Score, Predicting Death for Severe ARDS on V-V ECMO (PRESERVE) Score, and 30-day survival. Results: In our study cohort which enrolled 127 patients, overall 30-day survival was 54%. Median SOFA, SAPS II, APACHE II, RESP, and PRESERVE were 9, 36, 17, 1, and 4, respectively. The prognostic accuracy for all these scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic—AUROC) ranged between 0.548 and 0.605. Conclusions: The use of scores for the prediction of mortality cannot be recommended for treatment decisions in severe COVID-19 ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO; nevertheless, scoring results below or above a specific cut-off value may be considered as an additional tool in the evaluation of prognosis. Survival rates in this cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO were slightly lower than those reported in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO.