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
Prevalence, Risk Factors, Characteristics, and Clinical Outcomes of Thrombocytopenia in the Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective Single-Center Cohort Study. Effect of Auditory and Tactile Stimulation on the Level of Consciousness and Physiological Parameters in ICU Patients With Altered Consciousness. Persistent Severe Acute Kidney Injury Among Critically Ill Patients: Outcomes and Predictive Markers-A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study. Impact of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Biological Markers in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Liberal Versus Restrictive Blood Transfusion Strategies in Neurocritical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
×
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:604180095
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