BACKGROUND: Outcomes of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapies risk-adjusted by ECMO specific scores have rarely been reported. Our primary aim was to determine the risk adjusted outcome of these patients by the use of Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP), Survival After Veno-Arterial-ECMO (SAVE) and APACHE II scores. The differences in predicted mortality between these scoring systems were analyzed. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study reviewing 62 patients who received venous-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO) and venous-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) between 2009 and 2017 in a tertiary ICU. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging data were analyzed. Primary outcome measures were the crude mortality and standardized mortality ratio (SMR), expressed as observed mortality divided by expected mortality predicted from RESP, SAVE and APACHE II scores, respectively. We also examined the difference in predicted mortality derived from RESP, SAVE, and APACHE II by using Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty and Forty-two patients received VV-ECMO (20 runs) and VA-ECMO (43 runs) respectively. For VV-ECMO, the mean RESP was 0.6 [standard deviation (SD) 4.86] with RESP-SMR of 1.16 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) =0.44-1.88]. For VA-ECMO, the mean SAVE score was -7.8 (SD 5.6), with SAVE-SMR of 0.69 (95% CI =0.39-0.98). In the Bland Altman plot for VA-ECMO, mean difference in predicted mortality between SAVE and APACHE II was 17.6% (95% CI: 7.6% to 27.6%, P<0.0001), with 95% limit of agreement of -30.2% to 65.5% and beta coefficient of -1.04. APACHE II predicted mortality for VA-ECMO was lower than that for SAVE until it crossed SAVE prediction at about 80% mortality. After this point, it becomes progressively higher than that for SAVE. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality outcome of our patients on VV-ECMO and VA-ECMO compares favorably with predicted mortality based on RESP and SAVE, respectively. In our cohort of patients receiving VA-ECMO, APACHE II tends to underestimate mortality in lower risk patients, and overestimate the mortality in patients at high risk of death.
BACKGROUND: Outcomes of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapies risk-adjusted by ECMO specific scores have rarely been reported. Our primary aim was to determine the risk adjusted outcome of these patients by the use of Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP), Survival After Veno-Arterial-ECMO (SAVE) and APACHE II scores. The differences in predicted mortality between these scoring systems were analyzed. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study reviewing 62 patients who received venous-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO) and venous-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) between 2009 and 2017 in a tertiary ICU. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging data were analyzed. Primary outcome measures were the crude mortality and standardized mortality ratio (SMR), expressed as observed mortality divided by expected mortality predicted from RESP, SAVE and APACHE II scores, respectively. We also examined the difference in predicted mortality derived from RESP, SAVE, and APACHE II by using Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: Twenty and Forty-two patients received VV-ECMO (20 runs) and VA-ECMO (43 runs) respectively. For VV-ECMO, the mean RESP was 0.6 [standard deviation (SD) 4.86] with RESP-SMR of 1.16 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) =0.44-1.88]. For VA-ECMO, the mean SAVE score was -7.8 (SD 5.6), with SAVE-SMR of 0.69 (95% CI =0.39-0.98). In the Bland Altman plot for VA-ECMO, mean difference in predicted mortality between SAVE and APACHE II was 17.6% (95% CI: 7.6% to 27.6%, P<0.0001), with 95% limit of agreement of -30.2% to 65.5% and beta coefficient of -1.04. APACHE II predicted mortality for VA-ECMO was lower than that for SAVE until it crossed SAVE prediction at about 80% mortality. After this point, it becomes progressively higher than that for SAVE. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality outcome of our patients on VV-ECMO and VA-ECMO compares favorably with predicted mortality based on RESP and SAVE, respectively. In our cohort of patients receiving VA-ECMO, APACHE II tends to underestimate mortality in lower risk patients, and overestimate the mortality in patients at high risk of death.
Authors: Federico Pappalardo; Marina Pieri; Teresa Greco; Nicolò Patroniti; Antonio Pesenti; Antonio Arcadipane; V Marco Ranieri; Luciano Gattinoni; Giovanni Landoni; Bernhard Holzgraefe; Gernot Beutel; Alberto Zangrillo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Christian A Bermudez; Rodolfo V Rocha; Yoshiya Toyoda; Diana Zaldonis; Penny L Sappington; Suresh Mulukutla; Oscar C Marroquin; Catalin Toma; Jay K Bhama; Robert L Kormos Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Matthieu Schmidt; Michael Bailey; Jayne Sheldrake; Carol Hodgson; Cecile Aubron; Peter T Rycus; Carlos Scheinkestel; D Jamie Cooper; Daniel Brodie; Vincent Pellegrino; Alain Combes; David Pilcher Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Antonio Loforte; Andrea Montalto; Federico Ranocchi; Paola Lilla Della Monica; Giovanni Casali; Angela Lappa; Antonio Menichetti; Carlo Contento; Francesco Musumeci Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2012-02-21 Impact factor: 3.094
Authors: Eduardo Tamayo; Inma Fierro; Juan Bustamante-Munguira; María Heredia-Rodríguez; Pablo Jorge-Monjas; Laura Maroto; Esther Gómez-Sánchez; Francisco Bermejo-Martín; Francisco Alvarez; José Gómez-Herreras Journal: Crit Care Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Pauline Yeung Ng; April Ip; Shu Fang; Jeremy Chang Rang Lin; Lowell Ling; Kai Man Chan; Kit Hung Anne Leung; King Chung Kenny Chan; Dominic So; Hoi Ping Shum; Chun Wai Ngai; Wai Ming Chan; Wai Ching Sin Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 3.005