体外膜氧合支持COVID-19患者:一项倾向匹配的队列研究

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Research and Practice Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/5101456
Björn Stessel, Maayeen Bin Saad, Lotte Ullrick, Laurien Geebelen, Jeroen Lehaen, Philippe Jr Timmermans, Michiel Van Tornout, Ina Callebaut, Jeroen Vandenbrande, Jasperina Dubois
{"title":"体外膜氧合支持COVID-19患者:一项倾向匹配的队列研究","authors":"Björn Stessel,&nbsp;Maayeen Bin Saad,&nbsp;Lotte Ullrick,&nbsp;Laurien Geebelen,&nbsp;Jeroen Lehaen,&nbsp;Philippe Jr Timmermans,&nbsp;Michiel Van Tornout,&nbsp;Ina Callebaut,&nbsp;Jeroen Vandenbrande,&nbsp;Jasperina Dubois","doi":"10.1155/2023/5101456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020, to July 31<sup>st</sup>, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); <i>p</i>=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); <i>p</i> < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; <i>p</i> < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; <i>p</i>=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.</p>","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":"2023 ","pages":"5101456"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10279486/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Support COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Björn Stessel,&nbsp;Maayeen Bin Saad,&nbsp;Lotte Ullrick,&nbsp;Laurien Geebelen,&nbsp;Jeroen Lehaen,&nbsp;Philippe Jr Timmermans,&nbsp;Michiel Van Tornout,&nbsp;Ina Callebaut,&nbsp;Jeroen Vandenbrande,&nbsp;Jasperina Dubois\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/5101456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13<sup>th</sup>, 2020, to July 31<sup>st</sup>, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); <i>p</i>=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); <i>p</i> < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; <i>p</i> < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; <i>p</i>=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2023 \",\"pages\":\"5101456\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10279486/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5101456\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5101456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在COVID-19严重呼吸衰竭患者中,体外膜氧合(ECMO)治疗可以促进肺保护性通气,如果常规治疗不能确保足够的氧合和通气,可能会改善预后和生存率。我们的目的是进行一项验证性倾向匹配队列研究,比较ECMO和单独最大侵入性机械通气(MVA)对重症COVID-19肺炎死亡率和并发症的影响。材料和方法:纳入2020年3月13日至2021年7月31日在重症监护病房(ICU)连续收治的295例确诊的COVID-19肺炎成人患者。入院时,所有患者分为3类:(1)全码包括启动ECMO治疗(AAA码);(2)全码不包括ECMO (AA码);(3)不插管(A码)。对于271例非ecmo患者,确定所有接受MVA治疗的AAA码患者的匹配资格。采用包含以下变量的logistic回归模型进行倾向评分匹配:性别、P/F比、入院时SOFA评分和ICU入院日期。主要终点是ICU死亡率。结果:共有24例ECMO患者与相同数量的MVA患者倾向匹配。ECMO组ICU死亡率(45.8%)明显高于MVA组(16.67%)(OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17);p = 0.02)。ECMO组三个月死亡率为50%,而MVA组三个月死亡率为16.67% (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58);P < 0.01)。施加峰值吸气压力(33.42±8.52 vs. 24.74±4.86 mmHg);p < 0.01)和最大PEEP水平(14.47±3.22∶13.52±3.86 mmHg;p=0.01)。两组ICU住院时间(LOS)和医院住院时间(LOS)具有可比性。结论:尽管对机械通气的COVID-19患者进行了肺保护通气设置,但与MVA相比,ECMO治疗可能与ICU死亡率和3个月死亡率增加多达3倍相关。我们无法确认关于这一主题的第一项倾向匹配队列研究的积极结果。本试验注册号为NCT05158816。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Support COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Background: In patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Materials and methods: All 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality.

Results: A total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups.

Conclusion: ECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Care Research and Practice
Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Hemodynamic Management and Postoperative Outcomes After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Prospective Observational Study. Efficacy of COVID-19 Treatments in Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Assessment of Satisfaction Levels Among Families of Intensive Care Unit Patients in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Serum Concentration at 24 h With Intensive Beta-Lactam Therapy in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Prospective Study: Beta-Lactam Blood Levels in Sepsis. Assessing the Impact of Simulation-Based Learning on Student Satisfaction and Self-Confidence in Critical Care Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1