RATIONALE: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for acute respiratory failure has increased as a result of technological advancements and promising results from recent studies as compared with historical trials. OBJECTIVES: Systematically review the effect of ECLS compared with mechanical ventilation on mortality, length of stay, and adverse events in respiratory failure. METHODS: Data sources included were MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (through to October 2013). Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational study comparing ECLS to mechanical ventilation in adults was used. Two authors independently abstracted the data. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and adverse events. A sensitivity analysis was performed restricted to RCTs and quasi-RCTs, and a number of predefined subgroups were identified to explore heterogeneity. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (four RCTs, six observational studies, 1,248 patients) were included. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality with ECLS as compared with mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.33; I(2) = 77%). When restricted to venovenous ECLS studies of randomized trials and quasi-randomized trials (three studies; 504 patients), there was a decrease in mortality with ECLS compared with mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79; I(2) = 15%). There were insufficient study-level data to evaluate most secondary outcomes. Bleeding was significantly greater in the ECLS group (RR, 11.44; 95% CI, 3.11-42.06; I(2) = 0%). In the H1N1 subgroup (three studies; 364 patients), ECLS was associated with significantly lower hospital mortality (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.8; I(2) = 25%). CONCLUSIONS: ECLS was not associated with a mortality benefit in patients with acute respiratory failure. However, a significant mortality benefit was seen when restricted to higher-quality studies of venovenous ECLS. Patients with H1N1-acute respiratory distress syndrome represent a subgroup that may benefit from ECLS. Future studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of ECLS as well as the optimal configuration, indications, and timing for adult patients with respiratory failure.
RATIONALE: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for acute respiratory failure has increased as a result of technological advancements and promising results from recent studies as compared with historical trials. OBJECTIVES: Systematically review the effect of ECLS compared with mechanical ventilation on mortality, length of stay, and adverse events in respiratory failure. METHODS: Data sources included were MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (through to October 2013). Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational study comparing ECLS to mechanical ventilation in adults was used. Two authors independently abstracted the data. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and adverse events. A sensitivity analysis was performed restricted to RCTs and quasi-RCTs, and a number of predefined subgroups were identified to explore heterogeneity. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (four RCTs, six observational studies, 1,248 patients) were included. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality with ECLS as compared with mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.33; I(2) = 77%). When restricted to venovenous ECLS studies of randomized trials and quasi-randomized trials (three studies; 504 patients), there was a decrease in mortality with ECLS compared with mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79; I(2) = 15%). There were insufficient study-level data to evaluate most secondary outcomes. Bleeding was significantly greater in the ECLS group (RR, 11.44; 95% CI, 3.11-42.06; I(2) = 0%). In the H1N1 subgroup (three studies; 364 patients), ECLS was associated with significantly lower hospital mortality (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.8; I(2) = 25%). CONCLUSIONS: ECLS was not associated with a mortality benefit in patients with acute respiratory failure. However, a significant mortality benefit was seen when restricted to higher-quality studies of venovenous ECLS. Patients with H1N1-acute respiratory distress syndrome represent a subgroup that may benefit from ECLS. Future studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of ECLS as well as the optimal configuration, indications, and timing for adult patients with respiratory failure.
Entities:
Keywords:
adult; critical care; extracorporeal life support; intensive care units; respiratory distress syndrome; systematic review
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; David Atkins; Jan Brozek; Gunn Vist; Philip Alderson; Paul Glasziou; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Moronke A Noah; Giles J Peek; Simon J Finney; Mark J Griffiths; David A Harrison; Richard Grieve; M Zia Sadique; Jasjeet S Sekhon; Daniel F McAuley; Richard K Firmin; Christopher Harvey; Jeremy J Cordingley; Susanna Price; Alain Vuylsteke; David P Jenkins; David W Noble; Roxanna Bloomfield; Timothy S Walsh; Gavin D Perkins; David Menon; Bruce L Taylor; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A H Morris; C J Wallace; R L Menlove; T P Clemmer; J F Orme; L K Weaver; N C Dean; F Thomas; T D East; N L Pace; M R Suchyta; E Beck; M Bombino; D F Sittig; S Böhm; B Hoffmann; H Becks; S Butler; J Pearl; B Rasmusson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alberto Zangrillo; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Giovanni Landoni; Giacomo Frati; Nicolò Patroniti; Antonio Pesenti; Federico Pappalardo Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Ralph Tramm; Dragan Ilic; Andrew R Davies; Vincent A Pellegrino; Lorena Romero; Carol Hodgson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-22
Authors: Mark J D Griffiths; Danny Francis McAuley; Gavin D Perkins; Nicholas Barrett; Bronagh Blackwood; Andrew Boyle; Nigel Chee; Bronwen Connolly; Paul Dark; Simon Finney; Aemun Salam; Jonathan Silversides; Nick Tarmey; Matt P Wise; Simon V Baudouin Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2019-05-24
Authors: Matthias Kochanek; Jan Kochanek; Boris Böll; Dennis A Eichenauer; Gernot Beutel; Hendrik Bracht; Stephan Braune; Florian Eisner; Sigrun Friesecke; Ulf Günther; Gottfried Heinz; Michael Hallek; Christian Karagiannidis; Stefan Kluge; Klaus Kogelmann; Pia Lebiedz; Philipp M Lepper; Tobias Liebregts; Catherina Lueck; Ralf M Muellenbach; Matthias Hansen; Christian Putensen; Peter Schellongowski; Jens-Christian Schewe; Kathrin Schumann-Stoiber; Frederik Seiler; Peter Spieth; Steffen Weber-Carstens; Daniel Brodie; Elie Azoulay; Alexander Shimabukuro-Vornhagen Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 17.440