Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may provide mechanical pulmonary and circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional medical therapy. Prediction of survival in these patients may assist in management of these patients and comparison of results from different centers. To identify pre-ECMO factors which predict survival from refractory cardiogenic shock requiring ECMO and create the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score. Patients with refractory cardiogenic shock treated with veno-arterial ECMO between January 2003 and December 2013 were extracted from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using bootstrapping methodology with internal and external validation to identify factors independently associated with in-hospital survival. Of 3846 patients with cardiogenic shock treated with ECMO, 1601 (42%) patients were alive at hospital discharge. Chronic renal failure, longer duration of ventilation prior to ECMO initiation, pre-ECMO organ failures, pre-ECMO cardiac arrest, congenital heart disease, lower pulse pressure, and lower serum bicarbonate (HCO₃) were risk factors associated with mortality. Younger age, lower weight, acute myocarditis, heart transplant, refractory ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, higher diastolic blood pressure, and lower peak inspiratory pressure were protective. The SAVE-score (area under the receiver operating characteristics [ROC] curve [AUROC] 0.68 [95%CI 0.64–0.71]) was created. External validation of the SAVE-score in an Australian population of 161 patients showed excellent discrimination with AUROC = 0.90 (95%CI 0.85–0.95). The SAVE-score may be a tool to predict survival for patients receiving ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock (www.save-score.com).

Rationale: Increasing use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory failure may increase resource requirements and hospital costs. Better prediction of survival in these patients may improve resource use, allow risk-adjusted comparison of center-specific outcomes, and help clinicians to target patients most likely to benefit from ECMO. Objectives: To create a model for predicting hospital survival at initiation of ECMO for respiratory failure. Methods: Adult patients with severe acute respiratory failure treated by ECMO from 2000 to 2012 were extracted from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) international registry. Multivariable logistic regression was used to create the Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction (RESP) score using bootstrapping methodology with internal and external validation. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 2,355 patients included in the study, 1,338 patients (57%) were discharged alive from hospital. The RESP score was developed using pre-ECMO variables independently associated with hospital survival on logistic regression, which included age, immunocompromised status, duration of mechanical ventilation before ECMO, diagnosis, central nervous system dysfunction, acute associated nonpulmonary infection, neuromuscular blockade agents or nitric oxide use, bicarbonate infusion, cardiac arrest, PaCO2, and peak inspiratory pressure. The receiver operating characteristics curve analysis of the RESP score was c = 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.72–0.76). External validation, performed on 140 patients, exhibited excellent discrimination (c = 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.89–0.97). Conclusions: The RESP score is a relevant and validated tool to predict survival for patients receiving ECMO for respiratory failure.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to develop consensus recommendations on safety parameters for mobilizing adult, mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: A systematic literature review was followed by a meeting of 23 multidisciplinary ICU experts to seek consensus regarding the safe mobilization of mechanically ventilated patients. Results: Safety considerations were summarized in four categories: respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological and other. Consensus was achieved on all criteria for safe mobilization, with the exception being levels of vasoactive agents. Intubation via an endotracheal tube was not a contraindication to early mobilization and a fraction of inspired oxygen less than 0.6 with a percutaneous oxygen saturation more than 90% and a respiratory rate less than 30 breaths/minute were considered safe criteria for in- and out-of-bed mobilization if there were no other contraindications. At an international meeting, 94 multidisciplinary ICU clinicians concurred with the proposed recommendations. Conclusion: Consensus recommendations regarding safety criteria for mobilization of adult, mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU have the potential to guide ICU rehabilitation whilst minimizing the risk of adverse events.

Background: This document updates previously published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), incorporating new evidence addressing the use of corticosteroids, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, neuromuscular blocking agents, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Methods: We summarized evidence addressing four “PICO questions” (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in ARDS used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to develop clinical recommendations. Results: We suggest the use of: 1) corticosteroids for patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence), 2) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in selected patients with severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), 3) neuromuscular blockers in patients with early severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and 4) higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuvers as opposed to lower PEEP in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low to moderate certainty), and 5) we recommend against using prolonged lung recruitment maneuvers in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Conclusions: We provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the management of ARDS. Individual patient and illness characteristics should be factored into clinical decision making and implementation of these recommendations while additional evidence is generated from much-needed clinical trials.