scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article

A meta-analysis of complications and mortality of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

TL;DR: Even with conditions usually associated with a high chance of death, almost 50% of patients receiving ECMO survive up to discharge, and the most common complications associated with ECMO were renal failure, pneumonia or sepsis, and bleeding.
Abstract: Objective: To comprehensively assess published peerreviewed studies related to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), focusing on outcomes and complications of ECMO in adult patients. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE/PubMed was searched for articles on complications and mortality occurring during or after ECMO. Data extraction: Included studies had more than 100 patients receiving ECMO and reported in detail fatal or nonfatal complications occurring during or after ECMO. Primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available; secondary outcomes were fatal and non-fatal complications. Data synthesis: Twelve studies were included (1763 patients), mostly reporting on venoarterial ECMO. Criteria for applying ECMO were variable, but usually comprised acute respiratory failure, cardiogenic shock or both. After a median follow-up of 30 days (1st-3rd quartile, 30-68 days), overall mortality was 54% (95% CI, 47%-61%), with 45% (95% CI, 42%-48%) of fatal events occurring during ECMO and 13% (95% CI, 11%-15%) after it. The most common complications associated with ECMO were: renal failure requiring continuous venovenous haemofiltration (occurring in 52%), bacterial pneumonia (33%), any bleeding (33%), oxygenator dysfunction requiring replacement (29%), sepsis (26%), haemolysis (18%), liver dysfunction (16%), leg ischaemia (10%), venous thrombosis (10%), central nervous system complications (8%), gastrointestinal bleeding (7%), aspiration pneumonia (5%), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (5%). Conclusions: Even with conditions usually associated with a high chance of death, almost 50% of patients receiving ECMO survive up to discharge. Complications are frequent and most often comprise renal failure, pneumonia or sepsis, and Crit Care Resusc 2013; 15: 172-178 bleeding.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The pathophysiology of the inflammatory response to ECMO is reviewed, highlighting the complex interactions between arms of the innate immune response, the endothelium and coagulation.
Abstract: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology capable of providing short-term mechanical support to the heart, lungs or both. Over the last decade, the number of centres offering ECMO has grown rapidly. At the same time, the indications for its use have also been broadened. In part, this trend has been supported by advances in circuit design and in cannulation techniques. Despite the widespread adoption of extracorporeal life support techniques, the use of ECMO remains associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A complication witnessed during ECMO is the inflammatory response to extracorporeal circulation. This reaction shares similarities with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and has been well-documented in relation to cardiopulmonary bypass. The exposure of a patient's blood to the non-endothelialised surface of the ECMO circuit results in the widespread activation of the innate immune system; if unchecked this may result in inflammation and organ injury. Here, we review the pathophysiology of the inflammatory response to ECMO, highlighting the complex interactions between arms of the innate immune response, the endothelium and coagulation. An understanding of the processes involved may guide the design of therapies and strategies aimed at ameliorating inflammation during ECMO. Likewise, an appreciation of the potentially deleterious inflammatory effects of ECMO may assist those weighing the risks and benefits of therapy.

414 citations


Cites background from "A meta-analysis of complications an..."

  • ...Several studies have varied in their reported mortalities based on indication and modality [8, 9], ranging from 76% in one cohort undergoing ECMO and dialysis [10] to 37% in a mixed veno-venous (VV)/veno-arterial (VA) ECMO group [11]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome and in the setting of cardiogenic shock there was a increased survival with ECLs compared with IABP.
Abstract: Purpose Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

371 citations


Cites background from "A meta-analysis of complications an..."

  • ...Two previously published pooled analyses of complications of ECLS both reported high complication rates [29, 30]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The mechanisms and management of hemostatic, thrombotic and hemolytic complications during ECMO support are described, which remain a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients on ECMO.

305 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, epidemiology, complication profiles, hospital outcome, and predisposing factors of CNS complications occurring during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults were elucidated.
Abstract: Objectives:To elucidate the epidemiology, complication profiles, hospital outcome, and predisposing factors of CNS complications occurring during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults.Design:Retrospective analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry.Setting:

199 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A nomenclature which uses “A” and all following letters for supplying cannulas and all letters before ‘A’ for draining cannulas is proposed, which covers both dual and triple ECMO cannulation strategies (VV, VA, VVA, VAV).
Abstract: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has revolutionized treatment of severe isolated or combined failure of lung and heart. Due to remarkable technical development the frequency of use is growing fast, with increasing adoption by interventional cardiologists independent of cardiac surgery. Nevertheless, ECMO support harbors substantial risk such as bleeding, thromboembolic events and infection. Percutaneous ECMO circuits usually comprise cannulation of two large vessels ('dual' cannulation), either veno-venous for respiratory and veno-arterial for circulatory support. Recently experienced centers apply more advanced strategies by cannulation of three large vessels ('triple' cannulation), resulting in veno-veno-arterial or veno-arterio-venous cannulation. While the former intends to improve drainage and unloading, the latter represents a very potent method to provide circulatory and respiratory support at the same time. As such triple cannulation expands the field of application at the expense of increased complexity of ECMO systems. Here, we review percutaneous dual and triple cannulation strategies for different clinical scenarios of the critically ill. As there is no unifying terminology to date, we propose a nomenclature which uses "A" and all following letters for supplying cannulas and all letters before "A" for draining cannulas. This general and unequivocal code covers both dual and triple ECMO cannulation strategies (VV, VA, VVA, VAV). Notwithstanding the technical evolution, current knowledge of ECMO support is mainly based on observational experience and mostly retrospective studies. Prospective controlled trials are urgently needed to generate evidence on safety and efficacy of ECMO support in different clinical settings.

196 citations


Cites background from "A meta-analysis of complications an..."

  • ...Nevertheless, ECMO is an invasive life support system, with substantial risk of adverse events like bleeding, vascular complications, thromboembolic events and infection [4]....

    [...]

  • ...This potentially causes lower limb ischemia and may result in vascular surgery, compartment decompression or amputation [4, 38]....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
19 Apr 2000-JAMA
TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Abstract: ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature, research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE, Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity, study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are explored.

17,663 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
21 Jul 2009-BMJ
TL;DR: The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

13,813 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The quality assessment of non-randomized studies is an important component of a thorough meta-analysis of non randomized studies and can dramatically influence the interpretation of meta-analyses, and can even reverse conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention.
Abstract: The quality assessment of non-randomized studies is an important component of a thorough meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Low quality studies can lead to a distortion of the summary effect estimate. Recent guidelines for the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies recommend the assessment of the study quality (MOOSE) [1]. In principal, three categories of quality assessments tools are available: scales, simple checklists, or checklists with a summary judgment (for details see Sanderson et al. 2007 [2]). The results of the quality assessment can be used in several ways such as forming inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, informing a sensitivity analysis or metaregression, weighting studies, or highlighting areas of methodological quality poorly addressed by the included studies [3]. It has been criticized that the use of summary scores involve inherent weighting of component items including items that may not be related to the validity of the study findings [2]. Sanderson et al. [2] recently identified overall 86 tools for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies. Their review "highlighted the lack of a single obvious candidate tool for assessing quality of observational epidemiological studies" [2]. In the field of randomized trials, it has been shown that the choice of quality scale can dramatically influence the interpretation of meta-analyses, and can even reverse conclusions regarding the effectiveness of an intervention [4]. Wells et al. [5] proposed a scale for assessing the quality of published non-randomized studies in meta-analyses,

10,420 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Transfer of adult patients with severe but potentially reversible respiratory failure, whose Murray score exceeds 3.0 or who have a pH of less than 7.20 on optimum conventional management, to a centre with an ECMO-based management protocol is recommended to significantly improve survival without severe disability.

2,783 citations

Related Papers (5)