36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Complete countrywide mortality in COVID patients receiving ECMO in Germany throughout the first three waves of the pandemic

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Research Letter Extracorporeal membrane-oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used for COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with a mortality rate of 37.1% based on the largest published series [1]. This rate is comparable to ECMO-supported patients with non-COVID-19-related ARDS [1]. However, some reports suggest that the real-life mortality is higher than that reported above [2], including a cohort of 768 COVID-19 patients in Germany with an in-hospital mortality rate of 73% [3], and a surprising finding is given that health care resources in Germany were not notably under strain during the pandemic. To better characterize this discrepancy, we evaluated in-hospital mortality for all COVID-19 patients in Germany supported with venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO). We report unbiased and unselected follow-up data at hospital discharge from the federal German hospital payment institute (InEK) of all 3.397 COVID-19 patients supported with VV-ECMO in Germany from March 1st, 2020, through May 31st, 2021. ECMO in Germany was provided in 213 intensive care units (ICUs)—out of a total of 1.684 intensive care units across 1.288 hospitals (www.intensivregister.de). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Witten/Herdecke University. The mean age of all ECMO patients remained stable over the study period (57 ± 11 years). As expected, survivors were younger than the non-survivors (53 years (range 47–63 y) vs. 59y (Range: 54-63y)), independent of timing during the pandemic. The mean duration of ECMO support was not different between survivors and non-survivors, averaging 17 days. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 68%. Of note, the mortality for any given week (Fig. 1) shows some degree of variation, as survivors spend more time in hospital than non-survivors. Fig. 1 Weekly patient number of patients being treated with VV-ECMO in Germany for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure between March 2020 and May 2021. Mean mortality is given for all three waves with mean and standard deviation In the largest unbiased and unselected real-life cohort reported to date of VV-ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure, we found that in-hospital mortality for patients in Germany was 68%. This is markedly higher than that reported from other countries or from international registries [2–5], confirming prior results [3] of a higher mortality rate in Germany than reported elsewhere. Mortality in ECMO-supported COVID-19 patients may be increasing over the course of the pandemic, as reported in the most recent Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) cohort with a mortality of 51.9% in patients initiated on ECMO after May 1, 2020 [5]. However, that is still lower than the present cohort from Germany. One explanation is the older mean age of 57 ± 11 years in our report compared to the ELSO report (median 51 years). Another explanation is that the use of ECMO in Germany is not centrally regulated and clinicians could elect to initiate ECMO without constraints from regulatory bodies, potentially extending criteria beyond those patients who would be likely to benefit. Furthermore, in Germany, there is an incentive system for the control of health care which is characterized by proportional reimbursement: “as more procedures are done, as more will be paid by insurances,” probably leading to a mixture of ‘true’ indications and reimbursement temptations [6]. A comprehensive central case registry would be particularly important during a pandemic to frequently analyze data and draw updated conclusions. Finally, the ELSO data represent dedicated ECMO centers, whereas the current data are unselected from all German hospitals. A major strength of the study is inclusion of every COVID-19 patient treated with VV-ECMO in Germany (population ~ 83,000,000) over the course of the study. One limitation is the lack of granularity of the data, including comorbidities, impairing our ability to better understand the reasons for the high mortality. Ultimately, the present data should serve as a warning to clinicians. Even in a country with adequate resources, mortality in ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure may be high if its use is not restricted to patients deemed most likely to benefit.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: evolving outcomes from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

          Background Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date. Methods We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres—ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020—we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups. Findings In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1–39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0–53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4–62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70−0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17−1·73]). Interpretation Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. Funding None.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

            Background There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO. Results We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3–42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7–40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4–18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5–82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common. Conclusion The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03634-1.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Insight into ECMO, mortality and ARDS: a nationwide analysis of 45,647 ECMO runs

              Background Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has become an integral part of modern intensive therapy. The choice of support mode depends largely on the indication. Patients with respiratory failure are predominantly treated with a venovenous (VV) approach. We hypothesized that mortality in Germany in ECLS therapy did not differ from previously reported literature Methods Inpatient data from Germany from 2007 to 2018 provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany were analysed. The international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems codes (ICD) and process keys (OPS) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) types, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and hospital mortality were used. Results In total, 45,647 hospitalized patients treated with ECLS were analysed. In Germany, 231 hospitals provided ECLS therapy, with a median of 4 VV-ECMO and 9 VA-ECMO in 2018. Overall hospital mortality remained higher than predicted in comparison to the values reported in the literature. The number of VV-ECMO cases increased by 236% from 825 in 2007 to 2768 in 2018. ARDS was the main indication for VV-ECMO in only 33% of the patients in the past, but that proportion increased to 60% in 2018. VA-ECMO support is of minor importance in the treatment of ARDS in Germany. The age distribution of patients undergoing ECLS has shifted towards an older population. In 2018, the hospital mortality decreased in VV-ECMO patients and VV-ECMO patients with ARDS to 53.9% (n = 1493) and 54.4% (n = 926), respectively. Conclusions ARDS is a severe disease with a high mortality rate despite ECLS therapy. Although endpoints and timing of the evaluations differed from those of the CESAR and EOLIA studies and the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry, the reported mortality in these studies was lower than in the present analysis. Further prospective analyses are necessary to evaluate outcomes in ECMO therapy at the centre volume level.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Christian.Karagiannidis@uni-wh.de , karagiannidisc@kliniken-koeln.de
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                29 November 2021
                29 November 2021
                2021
                : 25
                : 413
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.461712.7, ISNI 0000 0004 0391 1512, Department of Pneumology and Critical Care Medicine, , ARDS and ECMO Centre, Cologne-Merheim Hospital, Kliniken Der Stadt Köln gGmbH, Witten/Herdecke University Hospital, ; Ostmerheimer Strasse 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.415502.7, Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital; University of Toronto, ; Toronto, Canada
                [3 ]GRID grid.7727.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2190 5763, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Regensburg, ; Regensburg, Germany
                [4 ]GRID grid.6363.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2218 4662, Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CCM, CVK), , Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, ; Berlin, Germany
                [5 ]GRID grid.413734.6, ISNI 0000 0000 8499 1112, Department of Medicine, , Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Center for Acute Respiratory Failure, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, ; New York, USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3247-2849
                Article
                3831
                10.1186/s13054-021-03831-y
                8628273
                34844657
                e25e2db8-4c20-4cb8-956d-4098cd6826b3
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 29 October 2021
                : 17 November 2021
                Categories
                Research Letter
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content3,067

                Cited by36

                Most referenced authors23