K. Foofuengmonkolkit, A. Susupaus, J. Udomkusonsri, T. Songdechakraiwut, J. Namchaisiri, P. Sakiyalak
{"title":"体外膜氧合与常规呼吸机支持在COVID-19急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者中的应用","authors":"K. Foofuengmonkolkit, A. Susupaus, J. Udomkusonsri, T. Songdechakraiwut, J. Namchaisiri, P. Sakiyalak","doi":"10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an undesirable outcome of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been widely accepted as a rescue therapy for severe ARDS, its use in COVID19-associated ARDS is still debated.\n\nObjective: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO or conventional ventilator support.\n\nMaterials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study in Bangkok Heart Hospital, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Patients were divided into ECMO and non-ECMO or conventional ventilator support groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU stay, recovery time after extubation, and total length of hospital stay.\n\nResults: Of the 3,053 COVID-19 patients, 36 (1.18%) developed severe ARDS, which 12 were treated with VV-ECMO and 24 with a conventional ventilator. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the ECMO group at 58.3% versus 83.3% (p=0.126). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding was non-significantly more common in the ECMO group at 41.7% versus 25.0% (p=0.306) but there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis in the ECMO group at 0% versus 20.8% (p=0.088). There were no significant differences in any other complications. Six patients, including four in the ECMO group and two in the non-ECMO group underwent cytokine removal via HA330 hemoperfusion, but interleukin-6 did not decrease in these patients.\n\nConclusion: VV-ECMO in COVID-19-associated ARDS patients did not significantly decreased mortality compared to conventional ventilator therapy. A multidisciplinary team should develop an optimal treatment plan for each COVID-19-associated ARDS patient.\n\nKeywords: SARS-CoV-2; Intensive care unit, Artificial respiration","PeriodicalId":17486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation versus Conventional Ventilator Support in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome\",\"authors\":\"K. Foofuengmonkolkit, A. Susupaus, J. Udomkusonsri, T. Songdechakraiwut, J. Namchaisiri, P. Sakiyalak\",\"doi\":\"10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an undesirable outcome of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been widely accepted as a rescue therapy for severe ARDS, its use in COVID19-associated ARDS is still debated.\\n\\nObjective: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO or conventional ventilator support.\\n\\nMaterials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study in Bangkok Heart Hospital, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Patients were divided into ECMO and non-ECMO or conventional ventilator support groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU stay, recovery time after extubation, and total length of hospital stay.\\n\\nResults: Of the 3,053 COVID-19 patients, 36 (1.18%) developed severe ARDS, which 12 were treated with VV-ECMO and 24 with a conventional ventilator. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the ECMO group at 58.3% versus 83.3% (p=0.126). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding was non-significantly more common in the ECMO group at 41.7% versus 25.0% (p=0.306) but there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis in the ECMO group at 0% versus 20.8% (p=0.088). There were no significant differences in any other complications. Six patients, including four in the ECMO group and two in the non-ECMO group underwent cytokine removal via HA330 hemoperfusion, but interleukin-6 did not decrease in these patients.\\n\\nConclusion: VV-ECMO in COVID-19-associated ARDS patients did not significantly decreased mortality compared to conventional ventilator therapy. A multidisciplinary team should develop an optimal treatment plan for each COVID-19-associated ARDS patient.\\n\\nKeywords: SARS-CoV-2; Intensive care unit, Artificial respiration\",\"PeriodicalId\":17486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet\",\"volume\":\"81 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation versus Conventional Ventilator Support in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an undesirable outcome of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been widely accepted as a rescue therapy for severe ARDS, its use in COVID19-associated ARDS is still debated.
Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO or conventional ventilator support.
Materials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study in Bangkok Heart Hospital, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Patients were divided into ECMO and non-ECMO or conventional ventilator support groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU stay, recovery time after extubation, and total length of hospital stay.
Results: Of the 3,053 COVID-19 patients, 36 (1.18%) developed severe ARDS, which 12 were treated with VV-ECMO and 24 with a conventional ventilator. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the ECMO group at 58.3% versus 83.3% (p=0.126). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding was non-significantly more common in the ECMO group at 41.7% versus 25.0% (p=0.306) but there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis in the ECMO group at 0% versus 20.8% (p=0.088). There were no significant differences in any other complications. Six patients, including four in the ECMO group and two in the non-ECMO group underwent cytokine removal via HA330 hemoperfusion, but interleukin-6 did not decrease in these patients.
Conclusion: VV-ECMO in COVID-19-associated ARDS patients did not significantly decreased mortality compared to conventional ventilator therapy. A multidisciplinary team should develop an optimal treatment plan for each COVID-19-associated ARDS patient.
Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; Intensive care unit, Artificial respiration