Disclaimer: This is an updated guideline from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) for the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The great majority of COVID-19 patients (>90%) requiring ECMO have been supported using venovenous (V-V) ECMO for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). While COVID-19 ECMO run duration may be longer than in non-COVID-19 ECMO patients, published mortality appears to be similar between the two groups. However, data collection is ongoing, and there is a signal that overall mortality may be increasing. Conventional selection criteria for COVID-19–related ECMO should be used; however, when resources become more constrained during a pandemic, more stringent contraindications should be implemented. Formation of regional ECMO referral networks may facilitate communication, resource sharing, expedited patient referral, and mobile ECMO retrieval. There are no data to suggest deviation from conventional ECMO device or patient management when applying ECMO for COVID-19 patients. Rarely, children may require ECMO support for COVID-19–related ARDS, myocarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C); conventional selection criteria and management practices should be the standard. We strongly encourage participation in data submission to investigate the optimal use of ECMO for COVID-19.

Over the past 10 years, there has been a rapid expansion in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the care of patients with refractory cardiac or respiratory failure. Infectious diseases clinicians must reconcile conflicting evidence from limited studies as they develop practices at their own institutions, which has resulted in considerably different practices globally. This review describes infection control and prevention as well as antimicrobial prophylaxis strategies in this population. Data on diagnostics and treatment for patients receiving ECMO with a focus on diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship is then examined. This review summarizes gaps in the current ECMO literature and proposes future needs, including developing clear definitions for infections and encouraging transparent reporting of practices at individual facilities in future clinical trials.

We retrospectively compared anticoagulation with heparin and bivalirudin for 32 consecutive children under 18 years old during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in our pediatric cardiac intensive care unit (PCICU). Between September 2015 and January 2018, 14 patients received heparin, 13 venoarterial (VA), and 1 venovenous (VV). From February 2018 to September 2019, 18 received bivalirudin (all VA). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) percentage of time with therapeutic activated partial thromboplastin time and activated clotting time was bivalirudin 54 (14%) and heparin 57 (11%), p = 0.4647, and percentage of time supratherapeutic was bivalirudin 18 (10%) and heparin 27 (12%), p = 0.0238. Phlebotomy-associated blood loss per hour of ECMO was double in the heparin compared with bivalirudin group 1.08 ml/h (0.20 ml/h), compared with 0.51 ml/h (0.07 ml/h), p = 0.0003, as well as interventions to control bleeding. Packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions significantly correlated with higher blood loss in the heparin group (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.49, p = 0.0047). Overall amount of blood product utilization was not different between the groups. Survival to ECMO decannulation was 89% for bivalirudin and 57% for heparin, p = 0.0396, although 6 month survival was not significantly different (67% versus 57%, p = 0.5809). Heparin may increase the need for PRBC transfusions and strategies to attenuate bleeding when compared with bivalirudin for children receiving ECMO in PCICU.

Introduction: Optimal anticoagulation therapy is essential for the prevention of thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications in pediatric patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent data have demonstrated bivalirudin has the potential to surpass and replace heparin as the anticoagulant of choice.Methods: We conducted a systematic review comparing the outcomes of heparin-based versus bivalirudin-based anticoagulation in pediatric patients supported on ECMO to identify the preferred anticoagulant to minimize bleeding events, thrombotic complications, and associated mortality. We referenced the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. These databases were searched from inception through October 2022. Our initial search identified 422 studies. All records were screened by two independent reviewers using the Covidence software for adherence to our inclusion criteria, and seven retrospective cohort studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion.Results: In total, 196 pediatric patients were anticoagulated with heparin and 117 were anticoagulated with bivalirudin while on ECMO. Across the included studies, it was found that for patients treated with bivalirudin, trends were noted toward lower rates of bleeding, transfusion requirements, and thrombosis with no difference in mortality. Overall costs associated with bivalirudin therapy were lower. Time to therapeutic anticoagulation varied between studies though institutions had different anticoagulation targets.Conclusion: Bivalirudin may be a safe, cost-effective alternative to heparin in achieving anticoagulation in pediatric ECMO patients. Prospective multicenter studies and randomized control trials with standard anticoagulation targets are needed to accurately compare outcomes associated with heparin versus bivalirudin in pediatric ECMO patients.