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.

Background: Critical Care Providers (CCPs) experience situations that challenge their ethics and professional standards and may entail moral distress (MD). Aim: To analyze MD perceived by CCPs in intensive care units (ICUs) or emergency departments (EDs) and further clarify whether CCPs who rely on spiritual resources differ in their perception of MD from those who do not utilize these resources. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous survey was administered using a modified version of the German language version of the Moral Distress Scale (MDS) with 2 × 12 items to assess the frequency and the respective perceived burden of specific situations by applying a 5-point Likert scale. Explorative factor analysis was performed and the sub-constructs of the respective items regarding MD frequency and burden were identified. Job burden and professional satisfaction were measured using visual analogue scales (VAS) and a four-point Likert scale, respectively. The 15-item SpREUK questionnaire was applied to measure spiritual attitudes and behaviours and to differentiate between religious and spiritual persons. Data from 385 German-speaking CCPs were included (55% physicians, 45% nurses). Results: Conflict situations are similar for physicians and nurses although they are perceived as more burdensome by nurses. Among physicians, the MDS factor Looking away/Resignation scores highest for assistant physician residents, whereas distress caused by looking away is more often perceived by specialist physicians without a managerial position. Work satisfaction is inversely associated with MD and emotional exhaustion is positively associated with it. Participants’ spirituality is marginally associated with MD. The best predictors of both MD frequency and burden are emotional exhaustion with further influences of work satisfaction, being a nurse, and being a non-believer on the frequency of MD perception. Being a nurse, participants’ experience in ICU/ED, and being of the male gender are further predictors of MD burden. Conclusions: MD is experienced differently by different groups of CCPs depending on their place in the hierarchy of responsibility. As MD perception is best predicted by emotional exhaustion, these situations should be avoided. Although some CCPs may rely on spiritual resources, all need individual and team support to cope with MD.

Health workers (HW) are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In order to monitor the infection dynamic on the basis of contact with patients, HW at the St. Antonius Hospital (SAH) were tested four times in one year by PCR and serology. The cumulative incidence of infection in HW was calculated. Swab and blood tests were simultaneously performed between April 2020 and April 2021. Risk factors and demographic information were assessed at the beginning of the study. The response rate was above 75% in all rounds of testing. The study comprised 1506 HW, 165 (10.6%) of which tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Working in an ICU or on wards with patient contact were risk factors (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.73–13.6 and OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.27–8.49). At the end of the study, the majority of HW (810 of 1363 (59.4%)) had been vaccinated at least once. A total of 29.1% of unvaccinated HW and 5.3% of vaccinated HW showed an immune response typical for natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 73 HW who provided information on the course of the disease, 31.5% reported that their quality of life continued to be impaired. The cumulative incidence of infection was low in these HW, which may be attributed to vaccination and good hygiene. Nevertheless, a work-related infection risk was identified, highlighting the need to improve protection against infection. A high risk of developing long COVID was found after the infection has subsided. Special rehabilitation programs should be provided and HW should be compensated for reduced work capacity in the case that rehabilitation fails or takes a long time.