Carol L Hodgson1, Aidan J C Burrell1,2, Daniel M Engeler1, Vincent A Pellegrino2, Daniel Brodie3, Eddy Fan4,5. 1. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 2. Department of Intensive Care, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 4. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Medicine, University Health Network and Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Research evaluating outcomes in critically ill patients with acute respiratory and cardiac failure supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has increased significantly. The objective was to identify a core set of outcomes that are essential to include in all clinical research evaluating the use of either venoarterial or venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill patients, particularly regarding safety and adverse events. DESIGN: A three-round modified Delphi process. SUBJECTS: Patients, caregivers, multidisciplinary clinicians, researchers, industry partners, and research funders were included. SETTING: Participants represented key extracorporeal membrane oxygenation organizations, including the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, the International Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Network, clinicians from high volume extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation researchers or former extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients from five continents. INTERVENTIONS: We used recommended standards for the development of a core outcome set. Outcome measures identified from systematic reviews of the literature and from qualitative studies of survivors were mapped to the domains identified by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative separately for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participant response rates were 40 of 47 (85%), 35 of 37 (95%), and 64 of 69 (93%) for survey rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with participants representing 10 different countries on five continents. After the third round survey, 8 outcome measures met consensus for both venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified core outcomes to assess in all research evaluating the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including adverse events specific to this intervention, permitting standardization of outcome reporting for the first time. Identifying appropriate measurement instruments to evaluate these outcomes is an important next step to enable synthesis of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation research.
OBJECTIVES: Research evaluating outcomes in critically illpatients with acute respiratory and cardiac failure supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has increased significantly. The objective was to identify a core set of outcomes that are essential to include in all clinical research evaluating the use of either venoarterial or venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically illpatients, particularly regarding safety and adverse events. DESIGN: A three-round modified Delphi process. SUBJECTS:Patients, caregivers, multidisciplinary clinicians, researchers, industry partners, and research funders were included. SETTING:Participants represented key extracorporeal membrane oxygenation organizations, including the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, the International Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Network, clinicians from high volume extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation researchers or former extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients from five continents. INTERVENTIONS: We used recommended standards for the development of a core outcome set. Outcome measures identified from systematic reviews of the literature and from qualitative studies of survivors were mapped to the domains identified by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative separately for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Participant response rates were 40 of 47 (85%), 35 of 37 (95%), and 64 of 69 (93%) for survey rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with participants representing 10 different countries on five continents. After the third round survey, 8 outcome measures met consensus for both venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified core outcomes to assess in all research evaluating the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, including adverse events specific to this intervention, permitting standardization of outcome reporting for the first time. Identifying appropriate measurement instruments to evaluate these outcomes is an important next step to enable synthesis of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation research.
Authors: Alain Combes; Daniel Brodie; Nadia Aissaoui; Thomas Bein; Gilles Capellier; Heidi J Dalton; Jean-Luc Diehl; Stefan Kluge; Daniel F McAuley; Matthieu Schmidt; Arthur S Slutsky; Samir Jaber Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Michael O Harhay; Jonathan D Casey; Marina Clement; Sean P Collins; Étienne Gayat; Michelle Ng Gong; Samir Jaber; Pierre-François Laterre; John C Marshall; Michael A Matthay; Rhonda E Monroe; Todd W Rice; Eileen Rubin; Wesley H Self; Alexandre Mebazaa Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Joseph E Tonna; Ryan P Barbaro; Peter T Rycus; Natalie Wall; Lakshmi Raman; Viviane G Nasr; Matt L Paden; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Heidi Dalton; Steven A Conrad; Robert H Bartlett; John M Toomasian; Peta M A Alexander Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 3.826
Authors: Darryl Abrams; Giacomo Grasselli; Matthieu Schmidt; Thomas Mueller; Daniel Brodie Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 41.787