Factors associated with hemolysis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-Comparison of VA- versus VV ECMO.

Venovenous (VV) and venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are effective support modalities to treat critically ill patients. ECMO-associated hemolysis remains a serious complication. The aim was to disclose similarities and differences in VA- and VV ECMO-associated hemolysis. This is a retrospective single-center analysis (January 2012 to September 2018) including 1,063 adult consecutive patients (VA, n = 606; VV, n = 457). Severe hemolysis (free plasma hemoglobin, fHb > 500 mg/l) during therapy occurred in 4% (VA) and 2% (VV) (p≤0.001). VV ECMO showed significantly more hemolysis by pump head thrombosis (PHT) compared to VA ECMO (9% vs. 2%; p≤0.001). Pretreatments (ECPR, cardiac surgery) of patients who required VA ECMO caused high fHb pre levels which aggravates the proof of ECMO-induced hemolysis (median (interquartile range), VA: fHb pre: 225.0 (89.3-458.0); VV: fHb pre: 72.0 (42.0-138.0); p≤0.001). The survival rate to discharge from hospital differed depending on ECMO type (40% (VA) vs. 63% (VV); p≤0.001). Hemolysis was dominant in VA ECMO patients, mainly caused by different indications and not by the ECMO support itself. PHT was the most severe form of ECMO-induced hemolysis that occurs in both therapies with low frequency, but more commonly in VV ECMO due to prolonged support time.

Introduction

Technical-induced hemolysis remains a common and critical complication during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) contributing to a variety of adverse events, and consequently affecting patient survival and quality of life. Reported incidence was between 5 and 18% [1-9]. Hemolysis is a mechanical damage of red blood cells (RBCs) induced by excessive high shear stress, like blood pumps, cannulas, which is manifested by hemoglobin released from ruptured, overstretched, overheated or prematurely aged RBCs. Free plasma hemoglobin (fHb) is cytotoxic resulting in tissue hypoxia and cell death [4]. FHb scavenges nitric oxide, leading to inappropriate vasoconstriction, endothelial dysfunction and platelet aggregation [5]. Consequently, severe complications such as renal dysfunction or multiple organ failure may emerge [1,8,10]. Therefore, prompt identification of technical-induced hemolysis is essential.

Comparative studies on hemolysis during adult venoarterial (VA) and venovenous (VV) ECMO are scarce. Mostly, patients treated with VA- and/or VV ECMO were included in studies for a large cohort analysis [9]. This is to our knowledge the first study that describes the differences and similarities of VA- and VV ECMO in relation to hemolysis. The prevalence of hemolysis and various factors that may lead to an increased fHb value were analyzed. FHb was used as a sensitive marker for hemolysis [1,11,12].

Methods

Study design

This is a retrospective single-center analysis on prospectively collected data (Regensburg ECMO Registry, medical records collected from January 2012 to September 2018) from consecutive patients that were treated with VA ECMO (n = 606) and VV ECMO (n = 457). The Ethics Committee of the University Regensburg approved the study protocol (vote #17-568-104). The need for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee, as all devices are approved for clinical use, no personalized data (fully anonymization) and only routine laboratory parameters were used.

Study population

ECMO management, indications and limitations have been described previously [1,13,14]. Our ECMO center mainly used four different ECMO systems. Table 1 listed all systems that were used first for therapy. Patients younger than 18 years were excluded.

Table 1

Distribution of the different ECMO systems.

System	Pump	Oxygenator	VA ECMO [n; %]	VV ECMO [n; %]
			606	457
Cardiohelp HLS	Cardiohelp	Cardiohelp 5.0 / 7.0	347; 57	136; 30
PLS	Rotaflow	Quadrox D	96; 16	74; 16
DP3 system	DP3	Hilite LT 7000	54; 9	135; 30
Life-Box	Revolution	ECC.O 5	75; 12	92; 20
Others	Rotaflow	MECC Quadrox Softline	34; 6	5; 1.1
	HemoLung	HemoLung	0: 0	3; 0.7
	DP3	iLA activve	0; 0	12; 2.6

Cardiohelp HLS, PLS and MECC: Getinge / Maquet GmbH, Rastatt, Germany; DP3 system and iLA-activve: Fresenius / Xenios AG, Heilbronn, Germany; Life-Box: Sorin Group / Liva Nova, Milan, Italy; HemoLung: ALung Technologies, Pittsburgh, USA.

Data collection and analysis

Data of this study were acquired from the Regensburg ECMO database, in which prospective physical and laboratory parameters, ECMO management data and outcome of ECMO patients are collected. Plasma free hemoglobin (fHb) levels were used as a marker for hemolysis [1,11,12]. The quantitative measurements of the fHb values from the patient’s blood were performed with a Dimension Vista® 1500 Clinical Chemical Analyzer (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics GmbH, Eschborn, Germany). In order to avoid errors, a new measurement was performed for conspicuously high values or from a doubling of the values within one day. FHb values > 500 mg/l were evaluated as clinically conspicuous and critical. FHb values before ECMO implantation (fHb pre) were of special interest. The concentrations were recorded daily until end of therapy. High fHb pre levels were used to identify subgroups of patients with a preexisting disease or intervention (such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR). FHb levels on the 1st day on ECMO were used to identify the effect of ECMO and ECMO circuit compounds (such as blood pump or cannulation) on the development of hemolysis. A total of 8,617 fHb values (from the time before ECMO support until its end) were included in the analysis. In addition, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), bilirubin, C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and platelets were analyzed as laboratory parameters.

Statistics

Statistical analysis was done using SigmaStat 3.5 (SYSTAT Software, San Jose, CA, USA). The used data sets are located in a supplementary file (dataset.xlsx). Continuous variables were shown as median (interquartile range, IQR), categorical variables were expressed as number (percentage). To compare e.g. the fHb values before and after ECMO initiation or during ECMO treatment, the paired values were checked for normal distribution using the Shapiro-Wilk test. If data were not normally distributed, the Wilcoxon non-parametric sign rank test was used. If analyses of unpaired values were necessary, statistical correlations were determined using the Mann-Whitney-U test. The Chi-square test was used if nominal distributed parameters were to be tested for correlation. The Z-test was used to compare proportions. P-value ≤ 0.05 was considered the threshold of statistical significance.

Results

While the majority of VA ECMOs used the Cardiohelp HLS system (57%), VV ECMO used both Cardiohelp HLS and DP3 system (each, 30%) equally (Table 1). The indications for the use of VA- or VV ECMO are different. This led to differences in patient characteristics and initial laboratory values (Table 2). Patients of both groups did not differ in gender, SOFA score, IL-6 and platelets. In addition, there was no difference in initial norepinephrine doses and the proportion of patients with acute renal failure (ARF), defined as the need for renal replacement therapy.

Table 2

Patient characteristics and preoperative laboratory data.

	VA ECMO	VV ECMO	p-value
Patients [n]	606	457	-
Females [n; %]	170; 28	141; 31	p = 0.092
Age [years]	60.4 (51.3–68.4)	54.8 (44.1–63.7)	p≤0.001
SOFA Score	12.0 (9.0–14.0)	12.0 (9.0–15.0)	p = 0.815
BMI [kg * m-2]	26.7 (24.2–30.1)	27.7 (24.2–33.1)	p≤0.001
ARF [n; %]	102; 17	96; 21	p = 0.099
NE [μg/kg/min]	0.30 (0.14–0.64)	0.31 (0.13–0.60)	p = 0.950
aPTT [sec]	53 (37–103)	42 (35–53)	p≤0.001
FHb pre [mg/l]	225 (89–458)	72 (42–138)	p≤0.001
LDH pre [U/l]	483.0 (281.0–860.0)	397.5 (265.5–637.8)	p≤0.001
Bilirubin pre [mg/dl]	0.7 (0.4–1.3)	0.8 (0.5–1.9)	p≤0.001
CRP pre [mg/l]	17.5 (4.0–80.3)	140.0 (42.5–250.0)	p≤0.001
TNF-α pre [pg/ml]	15.0 (10.0–23.0)	24.5 (14.0–47.0)	p≤0.001
IL-6 pre [pg/ml]	409.0 (149.0–1520.0)	464.0 (100.5–4620.0)	p = 0.433
Platelets pre [/nl]	176.0 (123.0–240.5)	175.0 (109.0–253.0)	p = 0.823
ECMO indication:
ECPR [n; %]	293; 48	-	-
fHb pre [mg/l]	289 (141–552)
CS [n; %]	254; 42	-	-
fHb pre [mg/l]	129 (61–286) a
NWCPB [n; %]	59; 10	-	-
fHb pre [mg/l]	282 (113–602)
Pulm. ALF [n; %]	-	327; 71	-
fHb pre [mg/l]		65 (40–119)
Extrapulm. ALF [n; %]	-	131; 29	-
fHb pre [mg/l]		100 (50–189) b

Data are shown as median (interquartile range); except for patient number, female gender, and ECMO indication (n; %). ALF, acute lung failure; BMI, Body mass index; ARF, acute renal failure; NE, Norepinephrine; aPTT, activated partial thromboplastin time; CRP, C-reactive protein; CS, cardiogenic shock: ECPR: extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; fHb: free plasma hemoglobin; IL-6, interleukin-6; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; SOFA, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment); TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor; NWCPB, no weaning from cardio-pulmonary bypass; ALF, acute lung failure. Pulmonary ALF: bacterial, viral, fungal, aspiration pneumonia, ALF not post trauma, other pathologies (e.g. pulmonary fibrosis, near drowning). Extrapulmonary ALF: ALF post trauma, surgery, chemotherapy.

a, fHb pre from CS was significantly lower compared to ECPR and NWCPB, p≤0.001;

b, fHb pre from extrapulmonary ALF was significantly higher than from pulmonary ALF, p = 0.002.

However, VA ECMO patients were older in age with a lower BMI and higher initial levels for fHb and LDH. In contrast, inflammatory data (CRP, TNF-α) and Bilirubin, a product of hemoglobin degradation and indicator for liver function, were significantly elevated in patients before VV ECMO implantation. Furthermore, the patients who required VA ECMO showed significantly higher aPTTs compared to patients with VV ECMO (Table 2). Indications for VA ECMO were ECPR (48%), cardiogenic shock (CS) (42%) and no weaning from cardio-pulmonary bypass (NWCPB) (10%). The main indication for VV ECMO was pulmonary acute lung failure (ALF) (71%). As expected from a former study [11] the requirement of CPR before ECMO caused hemolysis. Table 2 shows similar results for patients with ECPR and NWCPB. Patients with CS showed significantly lower fHb pre levels compared to ECPR and NWCPB (p≤0.001). Furthermore, patients with extrapulmonary ALF who required VV ECMO presented significantly elevated levels for fHb pre compared to patients with pulmonary ALF (p = 0.002).

Impact of cannulation on the development of hemolysis

Small cannulas and high ECMO blood flow may induce hemolysis [15]. VA- and VV ECMO used different initial cannulation strategies (Table 3).

Table 3

Cannulation strategies and effect on hemolysis.

	VA ECMO	VV ECMO	p-value
Patients [n]	606	457	-
Cannulation technique
central [n; %]	57; 9	-	-
fHb 1st day [mg/l]	89 (46–309)
peripheral surgical [n; %]	38; 6	-	-
fHb 1st day [mg/l]	93 (44–213)
peripheral percutaneous [n; %]	511; 84	457; 100
fHb 1st day [mg/l]	81 (51–163)	72 (42–138)	0.973
Cannula type
SLC [n; %]	606; 100	357; 78
fHb, 1st day [mg/l]	82 (49–172)	58 (40–102)	p≤0.001
DLC [n; %]	-	100; 22	-
fHb, 1st day [mg/l]		67 (40–107)

Data are median (interquartile range). FHb, free plasma hemoglobin; DLC, double lumen cannula; SLC, single lumen cannula.

While VV ECMO only used a minimally invasive method (peripheral percutaneous cannulation), 16% of VA ECMO patients additionally required central and peripheral surgical cannulation. Double lumen cannulas (DLCs) were used only for VV ECMO (22%).

FHb on the 1st day on ECMO was used to verify hemolysis induction due to different cannulation strategies. Neither central, nor peripheral surgical or peripheral percutaneous cannulation of VA ECMO patients affected fHb levels (Table 3, p = 0.973). In addition, usage of DLCs during VV ECMO did not induce hemolysis compared to single lumen cannulas (SLCs, p = 0.358).

Small-sized inflow cannulas (17 Fr) at a blood flow of ≤ 2.5 l/min (low flow) and > 3.0 l/min (high flow) did not induce hemolysis during VV ECMO [16]. Respective data for VA ECMO failed so far. VA ECMO patients were mainly supported with 15 Fr (50%) and 17 Fr (32%) cannulas. Despite differences in the inner diameter of these SLCs (15 Fr, 4.29 mm; 17 Fr, 4.85 mm) and a higher blood flow requirement for the 17 Fr SLCs (resulting in a significantly lower flow velocity), the fHb levels on the 1st and 2nd day on ECMO were comparable between both cannula types (Table 4). The downregulation of the blood flow from 1st to 2nd day was accompanied by a significant decrease in fHb levels. The support time was comparable for the different SLCs.

Table 4

Effect of 15 Fr and 17 Fr inflow cannula (VA ECMO) on hemolysis.

	15 Fr	17 Fr	p-value
Patients [n; %]	306; 50	194; 32	-
fHb, 1st day [mg/l]	78 (50–143)	85 (51–209)	p = 0.142
fHb, 2nd day [mg/l]	63 (43–97)	59 (43–125)	p = 0.715
p-value, 1st vs. 2nd day	p = 0.002	p≤0.001
BF, 1st day [l/min]	2.9 (2.3–3.3)	3.3 (2.8–3.9)	p≤0.001
BF, 2nd day [l/min]	2.7 (2.2–3.3)	3.1 (2.5–3.7)	p = 0.002
p-value, 1st vs. 2nd day	p≤0.001	p≤0.001
FV, 1st day [cm/s]	20.1 (15.9–22.8)	17.8 (15.1–21.1)	p≤0.001
FV, 2nd day [cm/s]	18.7 (15.2–22.8)	16.8 (13.5–20.0)	p≤0.001
p-value, 1st vs. 2nd day	p≤0.001	≤0.001
ECMO time [days]	3.0 (2.0–6.0)	3.0 (1.8–6.0)	p = 0.932

Data are median (interquartile range) of all patients with 15 Fr and 17 Fr cannulas. fHb, free plasma hemoglobin; Fr, French; BF, blood flow; FV, flow velocity. FV was calculated by dividing blood flow (Q, cm3/s) through the cross-sectional area of the cannula (A, cm2), FV = Q/A (cm/s)

Including only patients with fHb pre ≤ 100 mg/l and without PHT (Fig 1), there was also no effect of cannula size on the induction of hemolysis (1st, 2nd day, Fig 1A). As expected (see above), 17 Fr cannulas enabled significantly higher blood flow compared to 15 Fr cannulas (independent of the day on ECMO, Fig 1B). However, coding for high (≥ 3.0 l/min) and low (≤ 2.5 l/min) blood flow requirements resulted in a significant hemolysis for 15 Fr cannulas at high blood flow compared to 17 Fr cannulas ((Fig 1C). Furthermore, at high blood flow, the fHb levels of 15 Fr cannulas were significantly lower compared to 17 Fr cannulas (p = 0.027).

Fig 1

Effect of cannula size and blood flow on hemolysis induction regarding VA ECMO patients with fHb pre ≤ 100 mg/l (without pump head thrombosis).

15 Fr n = 86, 17 Fr n = 36. (A) Cannula size (Fr, French) had no effect on fHb levels on 1st and 2nd day on ECMO. (B) 17 Fr cannulas required a significantly higher blood flow compared to 15 Fr cannulas. (C) High blood flow (≥ 3 l/min) within 15 Fr cannulas induced significantly higher fHb levels compared to low blood flow (≤ 2.5 l/min). The median is shown as a black line in the box. The 25% or 75% quantile represents the lower or upper limit of the box. The smallest and largest observation is shown as whiskers, extreme values as circles.

Furthermore, ECPR patients that presented high fHb pre levels (S1 Table) were of special interest regarding cannula effects. Within one day on ECMO, high fHb pre levels decreased significantly independent of cannula size (15 Fr, decrease of 34%, p≤0.001; 17 Fr, decrease of 22%, p = 0.003). However, there was no difference of fHb levels on the 1st and 2nd day on ECMO comparing 15 Fr and 17 Fr cannulas (p = 0.853 and p = 0.729, respectively). The differences in blood flow, flow velocity and ECMO time described in Table 4 also apply to this group of patients.

Distribution of pump systems in the investigated patient population

The effect of blood pumps, in particular centrifugal pumps, on hemolysis is debatable [17,18]. As shown in Table 5, VA ECMO patients were more frequently supplied with Cardiohelp pumps (Cardiohelp HLS system), while VV ECMO patients used more DP3 pumps.

Table 5

Effect of pump type during VA- and VV ECMO on hemolysis.

System	Cardiohelp HLS	PLS	DP3 system	Life-Box	Others
Pump	Cardiohelp	Rotaflow	DP3	Revolution	Others
VA ECMO
n; %	347; 57	96; 16	54; 9	75; 12	34; 6
fHb pre [mg/l]	227 (100–450)	233 (101–583)	129 (67–276)	246 (79–412)	275 (84–596)
fHb, 1st day [mg/l]	74 (46–154)	80 (49–243)	93 (48–167)	101 (56–264)	107 (57–292)
p-values (pre vs. 1st day)	p≤0.001	p≤0.001	p = 0.017	p = 0.071	p = 0.003
VV ECMO
n; %	136; 30	74; 16	135; 29	92; 20	20; 5
fHb pre [mg/l]	85 (46–145)	55 (36–145)	69 (45–135)	65 (37–133)	73 (49–125)
fHb, 1st day [mg/l]	64 (44–109)	56 (37–99)	62 (39–110)	53 (35–76)	51 (32–98)
p-values (pre vs. 1st day)	p = 0.003	p = 0.034	p = 0.020	p = 0.002	p = 0.225
p-values (VA vs. VV)
pump	p≤0.001	p = 0.833	p = 0.006	p = 0.239	p = 0.647
fHb pre	p≤0.001	p≤0.001	p = 0.002	p≤0.001	p = 0.005
fHb, 1st day	p = 0.092	p≤0.001	p = 0.027	p≤0.001	p = 0.032

Data are median (interquartile range); except for patient number. Cardiohelp and Rotaflow: Getinge / Maquet GmbH, Rastatt, Germany; DP3: Fresenius / Xenios AG, Heilbronn, Germany; Revolution: Sorin Group / Liva Nova, Milan, Italy. Others: Various pumps (e.g. HemoLung: ALung Technologies, Pittsburgh, USA). Statistics compared respective data from VA- and VV ECMO.

Nevertheless, independent of ECMO type, the single pump type had no impact on the development of hemolysis (VA: 1st day, p = 0.077; VV: 1st day, p = 0.072). Indeed, VA ECMO patients presented significantly higher levels of fHb pre and on 1st day compared to VV ECMO patients. However, none of the used pumps induced hemolysis. Instead, the concentrations decreased significantly within one day on VA ECMO (Table 5). VV ECMO showed a similar trend, but the decrease was less pronounced (Table 5).

Hemolysis and pump head thrombosis

Hemolysis is a critical complication during ECMO therapy [1,3,5]. At our ECMO center, the levels of fHb were determined routinely every day. The frequency of complete measurements was 95% and 97% for VA- and VV ECMO, respectively (Table 6).

Table 6

Frequency of hemolysis and pump head thrombosis.

1st day-end	VA ECMO	VV ECMO	p-value
Patients [n]	606	457	-
Cumulative ECMO time [days]	3010	4969	-
Cumulative fHb values [n]	2864	4832	-
Frequency [%]	95	97	-
ECMO time per patient [days; median (IQR)]	4 (2–7)	8 (6–14)	p≤0.001
FHb values per patient [n; median (IQR)]	3 (1–6)	8 (5–13)	p≤0.001
FHb values > 500 mg/l [n; %]	119; 4	86; 2	p≤0.001
Patients with fHb > 500 mg/l [n; %]	72; 12	47; 10	p≤0.001
PHT [n; %]	15; 2	41; 9	p≤0.001
Time of PHT [days, median (IQR)]	5.0 (3.0–6.5)	9.0 (7.0–13.0)	p≤0.001

FHb: free plasma hemoglobin; IQR: interquartile range; PHT: pump head thrombosis.

The cumulative ECMO time as well as the median ECMO time per patient was longer for VV ECMO. Fig 2 illustrates all measured fHb levels from each patient during its ECMO support.

Fig 2

All fHb measurements from 1st day till end of VA- or VV ECMO support (A: VA n = 606, B: VV n = 457).

The lines divide the graph into values ≤ 100 mg/l (102), 101–500 mg/l, 501–1000 mg/l and > 1,000 mg/l (103) which indicates a rising degree of hemolysis. The arrow shows all fHb above 100 mg/l that are suspected of hemolysis: 26% (VA) vs. 15% (VV). Of particular importance were fHb values above 500 mg/l as critical hemolysis markers [2,9]: 1% (VA) vs. 0.4% (VV).

In particular, the amount of critical fHb values (> 500 mg/l) was significantly lower for VV ECMO (VA, 4%; VV, 2%, p≤0.001). In addition, the proportion of patients with at least one critical fHb value was higher for VA ECMO (VA, 12%; VV, 10%; p≤0.001). Furthermore, the occurrence of severe hemolysis–in particular of PHT–was significantly more frequent in VV ECMO patients (VA, 2%; VV, 9%, p≤0.001). Time to onset of PHT was prolonged for VV ECMO patients. Pump head thrombosis is an acute emergency event and is defined as a rapid and substantial increase in fHb (> 300 mg/l) accompanied mostly by a decrease in platelets and an abnormal noise/vibration of pump head. The pump head has to be changed. The levels of fHb decreased and platelets normalized after immediate change of the circuit [1]. In addition, the removed pump head presented visible clots.

There was no prevalence for the appearance of a PHT regarding the different pump systems (S2 Table). There was no difference in distribution of pumps with PHT for the ECMO types (p = 0.914). However, the incidence of a PHT was significantly elevated for Cardiohelp during VV ECMO (VA, 7/347, 2% vs. VV, 14/136, 10%, p≤0.001). In contrast, the incidence of PHT was not different for the other pump systems comparing VA and VV data (Rotaflow, 1/96 vs. 4/74 vs., p = 0.226; DP3, 2/54 vs. 8/135, p = 0.797; Revolution, 4/75 vs.13/92, p = 0.107; others, 1/34 vs. 2/20, p = 0.548).

Blood products, ARF and outcome

During ECMO support, the consumption of blood products (RBC, FFP, PC) was significantly higher for VA ECMO support (Table 7). However, the proportion of patients that required RBC transfusion was not different between VA and VV ECMO therapy (VA, n = 422, 70%; VV: n = 305, 67%; p = 0.348). The incidence of acute renal failure was comparable between VA and VV ECMO (26% and 21%, respectively). Survival to hospital discharge was 40% vs. 63% (p≤0.001) for patients treated with VA- and VV ECMO, respectively (Table 7).

Table 7

Transfusion, acute renal failure and outcome.

	VA ECMO	VV ECMO	p-value
	606	457	-
RBC/days ECMO	0.66 (0.00–1.77)	0.26 (0.00–0.67)	p≤0.001
FFP/days ECMO	0.00 (0.00–1.00)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	p≤0.001
PC/days ECMO	0.00 (0.00–0.27)	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	p≤0.001
ARF during ECMO [n; %]	159; 26	97; 21	p = 0.069
Survival to hospital discharge [n; %]	241; 40	288; 63	p≤0.001

Data are median (interquartile range) except for acute renal failure (ARF) on ECMO and survival rate. RBC, red blood cells; FFP, fresh frozen plasma (1 FFP contains 230 ml plasma); PC, platelet concentrate (1 PC contains 250 ml and 2–4 x 1011 platelets).

Discussion

This study presents differences and similarities of hemolysis on a large cohort of adult patient supported with VA- and VV ECMO. Patients with ECPR and NWCPB requiring VA ECMO support showed highest levels of fHb even before ECMO implantation. Nevertheless, neither cannula nor pump type induced hemolysis during VA- and VV ECMO support. However, the frequency of high fHb values was significantly higher in the cohort of VA ECMO compared to VV ECMO patients. In addition, the incidence of PHT was significantly higher for VV ECMO compared to VA ECMO support.

The indication for VA- or VV ECMO depended on the supported organ: either cardiac and/or respiratory support. Therefore, the patient populations of both ECMO types differ due to their underlying diseases. Nevertheless, in many studies both patient collectives were always mixed, as the patient numbers at the individual centers were limited [9]. In the present study, both patient groups showed comparable SOFA scores, but VA ECMO patients were older and presented higher levels of fHb and LDH. The latter is a clear sign of cell destruction according to their indication. In contrast, increased levels of inflammatory parameters in septic patients with VV ECMO did not result in increased hemolysis [19]. The introduced high levels of fHb pre mainly came from ECPR and NWCPB procedures. In a former study, it was shown that CPR with chest compression caused hemolysis [11]. Furthermore, extensive surgery such as cardiac surgery with a pronounced need for RBC transfusions induces elevated fHb levels [20,21]. However, transfusion requirements before ECMO were not included in the ECMO database. In addition, metabolic disorders [22], hypoxia [23] due to cardiac arrest, various diseases [4], bleedings [20] and other large surgical interventions may increase RBC transfusions with increased levels of fHb.

High fHb pre levels complicated investigations of the primary impact of ECMO on red blood cell destruction. Therefore, former studies only used cases with fHb pre levels ≤ 100 mg/l to demonstrate that neither VA- nor VV ECMO aggravated hemolysis [11,16]. Regarding all patients–in particular, patients with high initial hemolysis–the implantation of an ECMO system resulted in a significant decrease in fHb levels. This effect was particularly noticeable in VA ECMO patients independent of cannulation strategy and pump type. ECMO-induced hemolysis apparently plays a significant role only in 15 Fr cannulas under high blood flow (≥ 3 l/min). About 50% of VA ECMO patients got a 15 Fr cannula. The size of the cannula depended on the requirement of anticipated tissue oxygenation and the degree of cardiac support provided [24]. An unexpectedly elevated demand required higher flow rates. The subsequent installation of a larger cannula is avoided because of the high risk for the patient (e.g. bleeding, infection). Obviously, extracorporeal support of circulation with restoration of tissue supply normalized RBC damage [11]. Cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock impaired organ perfusion (e.g. stasis in spleen or liver). Obviously, a successful and rapid restoration of adequate cardiac output will eliminate locally harmful/toxic concentration of fHb in tissue or increase its degradation.

Nevertheless, hemolysis remains a critical complication during ECMO support. In literature, the frequency of hemolysis ranged between 5 and 18% [1-9]. At our ECMO center, severe hemolysis with fHb levels > 500 mg/l dominated in VA ECMO patients. The proportion of abnormal high fHb levels on ECMO was significantly higher for VA- (4%) compared to VV ECMO treatment (2%). In addition, the proportion of patients that presented high fHb values during ECMO was significantly higher for VA ECMO. These patients required significantly higher amounts of blood products (by a factor of 2.5 more RBCs) and tended to a higher proportion of ARF during ECMO. Another retrospective study from [25] demonstrated that RBC transfusion during ECMO was associated with severe complications (thromboembolic complications, sepsis, hemolysis) and ARF. Red cell damage during storage and the potential harmful consequences after transfusion are discussed in literature–in particular in massive transfusion scenarios [26].

However, only 13% of the high fHb levels were explainable by a life-threatening PHT. A PHT is always an acute event and requires a prompt circuit change with all the associated complications and risks (such as bleedings, infections). However, within one day, fHb levels normalized. Interestingly, the incidence of a PHT was significantly higher for VV ECMO patients (9% vs. 2%). Furthermore, the time to PHT was by a factor of two significantly longer for VV ECMO. The differences described above may be due to the extended ECMO time. A prolonged use of cannulas in situ may lead to increased risk of clot formation on the cannula tip that can detach and aspirate in the pump head. In addition, increased inflammation within VV ECMO patients was also associated with hypercoagulability that may affect the incidence of PHT [27]. Furthermore, anticoagulation regimen was different between VA and VV ECMO (aPTT target values: VA: 50–60 sec; VV: 45–50 sec). In particular, cardiothoracic patients with worsened ventricular function and intracardiac stasis required higher anticoagulation to prevent a hypercoagulable state and the development of thrombosis. Finally, reasons for the different incidences of PHT cannot be clarified.

Another point of view is the pump-type specific induction of hemolysis [12,17,18,28,29]. Even the new generation of centrifugal pumps showed large differences in blood cell damage [29]. In the present study, there was no prevalence for appearance of a PHT regarding the different pump systems. However, the most used system (Cardiohelp HLS) showed a significantly higher proportion of PHT during VV ECMO support compared to VA ECMO (10% vs. 2%) if one compares the Cardiohelp HLS fraction with PHT with the total number of Cardiohelp HLS within the corresponding collective. Again, longer support time of VV ECMO as well as different states of coagulation may induce hemolysis. However, all other systems showed no difference in induction of hemolysis comparing the different ECMO types.

There was no difference in risk of hemolysis concerning the type of cannulation for either VA- or VV ECMO. On VV ECMO it has already been described that an increase in blood flow may cause mild hemolysis, but even at 3.0–4.5 l/min three-quarters of the fHb values were below 100 mg/l [1,12,16]. A slightly increased hemolysis with higher flow velocity in the cannula of VV ECMO was shown in the literature [12]. Our data confirmed this for VA ECMO when comparing low (≤ 2.5 l/min) vs. high blood flow (≥ 3.0 l/min) in patients with fHb pre ≤ 100 mg/l without PHT. Small-sized 15 Fr cannulas and high blood flow (≥ 3.0 l/min) showed higher fHb values compared to 17 Fr cannulas. By matching cannula size and blood flow, the risk of ECMO-induced hemolysis can be controlled [12,30].

Although our ECMO center strives for an optimized ECMO management, significantly less VA ECMO patients survived than on VV ECMO (40% vs. 63%; p≤0.001). Other ECMO centers presented similar survival rates [31,32]. However, the indications for both ECMO types were different.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. It is a monocentric, retrospective study. Therefore, the reasons for high fHb levels could only be deduced retrospectively from available data. An accurate documentation therefor was decisive. Hemolysis was defined only by determining fHb value; possible sampling errors or transport damage had to be considered (a double determination of the fHb value for conspicuous values served to limit them). Furthermore, it had to be considered that intravascular hemolysis and high fHb values were late markers for blood destruction [12] and can arise for multifactorial reasons.

Conclusions

VA and VV ECMO patients have many similarities, but more differences. VA ECMO patients presented higher fHb values before ECMO and throughout the ECMO support. VV ECMO, on the other hand, has frequently shown PHTs with increased incidence in Cardiohelp pumps. The use of different pumps showed no increased risk of hemolysis, independent of ECMO type. Cannulation did not induce hemolysis. The fHb values decreased after ECMO initiation in VA- and VV ECMO.

Effect of 15 Fr and 17 Fr inflow cannula during VA ECMO with ECPR on hemolysis.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Effect of the pump type on the frequency of a PHT.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

8 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-24231

Factors associated with hemolysis during adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) – comparison of VA- versus VV ECMO

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof. Lehle,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study, including: a) whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them; b) the date range (month and year) during which patients' medical records were accessed; c) the date range (month and year) during which patients whose medical records were selected for this study sought treatment; and d) the source of the medical records analyzed in this work (e.g. hospital, institution or medical center name). If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

First of all thanks to all the authors for this interesting paper dealing with the factors associated with hemolysis during adult V-V and V-A ECMO. On the basis of the reviews i received i deem the manuscript suitable for publication but after major revision only.

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article presents the analysis of 1063 patients having undergone ECMO support for different reasons (VA 606 vs VV 457)

The article is interesting and is a hot topic but in my opinion, more details could enrich the article.

- You have to complete the abstract including the years of the study and “consecutive patients” in the Methods section.

- The authors stated the aims of the study was to disclose similarities and differences in VA and VV ECMO associated hemolysis but only in the abstract. In my opinion, it must be clearer also in the main text. Furthermore, the two population are really different in the pre ECMO treatment values in terms of age, BMI, FHb pre, LDH, Bilirubin, CRP pre, and TNF. There was also a difference in age. Even if the authors try to explain these differences probably, a propensity-matched analysis could be useful to better understand the proposed aim and avoid any other bias.

- The references must be order for the number of appearance in a consecutive way.

- Moreover, in my opinion the clinical outcomes could be more important than the simple hemolysis so it could be useful to investigate the adverse clinical events in terms of transfusion and AKI during the ECMO treatment between groups.

- What about the CVVH treatment? Are there any patients that required it during ECMO?

- The differences between VA and VV ECMO in terms of PHT is very interesting but in my opinion a deeper analysis for risk factors could be made even if the duration of ECMO treatment itself maybe is the simplest and easier explanation.

Reviewer #2: Very interesting analysis on hemolysis in ECMO patients, underlying similarities and differences between VV and VA.

A few comments:

- In your analysis ECMO (be it VV or VA) did not seem to promote hemolysis per se, while abnormally high levels of fHb in ECPR and post-cardiotomic VA ECMO seem to be "washed out". Do you believe this is due to a rapid restoration of adequate CO? Possible reasons for high fHb in these subgroups? Liver stasis?

- Was haptoglobin tested?

- How do you define pump head thrombosis? Do you routinely measure fibrinogen and D-dimers? Or is it a clinical/visual diagnosis? Does this prompt a circuit change?

- Smaller cannulae (even if blood flow was not so high) do not seem to increase fHb. Is this because blood flow was reduced (i.e. we generally go up to 2.6 BFI with a 15F)? Please comment.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Fabio Sangalli, MD, FASE

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

20 Nov 2019

Reviewer #1: The article presents the analysis of 1063 patients having undergone ECMO support for different reasons (VA 606 vs VV 457)

The article is interesting and is a hot topic but in my opinion, more details could enrich the article.

Comment #1: You have to complete the abstract including the years of the study and “consecutive patients” in the Methods section.

Answer to #1:

Thank you very much for this comment. We included years of the study and the term „consecutive patients“ in the Methods section of the abstract. At the same time, we reformatted the abstract.

Comment #2: The authors stated the aims of the study was to disclose similarities and differences in VA and VV ECMO associated hemolysis but only in the abstract. In my opinion, it must be clearer also in the main text. Furthermore, the two population are really different in the pre ECMO treatment values in terms of age, BMI, FHb pre, LDH, Bilirubin, CRP pre, and TNF. There was also a difference in age. Even if the authors try to explain these differences probably, a propensity-matched analysis could be useful to better understand the proposed aim and avoid any other bias.

Answer to #2:

• In each analysis, we presented the differences / similarities between the two ECMO types (see tables and Figure 2). An exception is the effect of small cannulas on hemolysis. This was published in detail for VV ECMO patients with initial fHb levels ≤ 100 mg/l and 17 Fr cannulas (the most commonly used cannula for VV ECMO). We wanted to avoid a double publication. However, the corresponding reference is already given in the text (Lehle et al. Artificial Organs 2014; 38(5): 391-8).

• The different patient characteristics (Table 2) are one difference and therefore a result. Since these results are important differences that characterize the two study groups, we will not perform a propensity-matched analysis. The decision for a system (VA or VV) does not depend on age, BMI or initial laboratory values - it is a clinical decision.

• Furthermore, we expanded Table 2 with the proportion of patients with initial acute renal failure and norepinephrine levels (based on your comment below regarding acute kidney injury during ECMO).

Comment #3: The references must be order for the number of appearance in a consecutive way.

Answer to #3:

Thanks for the note. We have rearranged the order of the references.

Comment #4: Moreover, in my opinion the clinical outcomes could be more important than the simple hemolysis so it could be useful to investigate the adverse clinical events in terms of transfusion and AKI during the ECMO treatment between groups.

Answer to #4:

According to your comment, we expanded our last result section and entitled this section with “Blood products, ARF and outcome”. This includes a new Table 7. We compared the consumption of blood products per day of ECMO of both groups. There was a significant higher requirement for RBCs, FFPs and PCs during VA ECMO. However, the proportion of patients that required RBCs was comparable. Furthermore, we introduced the events of ARF (acute renal failure) that tended to be higher during VA ECMO. We also discussed these results.

Comment #5: What about the CVVH treatment? Are there any patients that required it during ECMO?

Answer to #5:

As mentioned above (answer to #4), there were patients who needed CVVH treatment during ECMO. However, there was only a trend of more CCVH treatment for VA ECMO compared to VV ECMO (26 % vs. 21 %, p=0.069, respectively). See Table 7.

Comment #6: The differences between VA and VV ECMO in terms of PHT is very interesting but in my opinion a deeper analysis for risk factors could be made even if the duration of ECMO treatment itself maybe is the simplest and easier explanation.

Answer to #6:

We will discuss other risk factors for the occurrence of a PHT:

1. The reason for a PHT could be the formation of a clot on the cannula tip due to long residence time of some cannulas. These clots can detach and aspirate in the pump head. However, there is no evidence for this type of clot accumulation within the pump head.

2. Anticoagulation regimen was different between VA and VV ECMO. At our center, the target value of aPTT for VV ECMO was 45-50 sec and for VA ECMO 50-60 sec. In particular, patients with worsened ventricular function and intracardiac stasis required higher anticoagulation to prevent a hypercoagulable state and the development of thrombosis.

3. The consumption of higher RBCs might also be a risk factor for PHT. However, the amount of RBC per ECMO day was significantly higher for VA ECMO compared to VV ECMO.

Reviewer #2:

Very interesting analysis on hemolysis in ECMO patients, underlying similarities and differences between VV and VA. A few comments:

Comment #1: In your analysis ECMO (be it VV or VA) did not seem to promote hemolysis per se, while abnormally high levels of fHb in ECPR and post-cardiotomic VA ECMO seem to be "washed out". Do you believe this is due to a rapid restoration of adequate CO? Possible reasons for high fHb in these subgroups? Liver stasis?

Answer to #1:

Excuse our formulation “washed out”. We suspect that the perfusion of the peripheral organs, especially the liver and spleen, is limited in patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Blood stasis within these organs and chest decompression (in about half of the VA ECMO patients – ECPR) may be responsible for destruction of RBCs. A successful and rapid restoration of adequate cardiac output (or organ perfusion) will eliminate the accumulated and toxic fHb in tissue or increase its degradation in spleen and liver.

Reasons for high fHb levels are CPR before ECMO initiation due to RBC damage (Lehle et al. Eur J Heart Failure 2017; 19 (2): 110-6). Furthermore, increased use of RBC transfusions (Vermeulen et al. Critical Care; 2012; 16 (3): R95) which are often needed especially for cardiac surgery, metabolic disorders (Ilani et al. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta; 1990; 1027 (2): 199-204), hypoxia (Foeller et al. IUBMB Life: 2008; 60 (10): 661–668) due to cardiac arrest, various diseases (Rother et al. JAMA; 2005; 293: 1653-1662), bleeding (Vermeulen et al. Critical Care; 2012; 16 (3): R95) and major surgery itself (Vercaemst. J of Extra Corpor Technol 2008; 40 (4): 257-267) may be responsible for high fHb pre levels.

We included these explanations and assumptions in the discussion section.

Comment #2: Was haptoglobin tested?

Answer to #2:

No. Haptoglobin testing was not performed at our ECMO center. Haptoglobin is a Hb scavenger and normally cleared high levels of Hb. However, this clearing mechanism becomes saturated and exhasted in case of excessive hemolysis – in particular for patients with initial levels of fHb.

(Vercaemst. J of Extra Corpor Technol 2008; 40 (4): 257-267). We did not include this comment in our manuscript.

Comment #3: How do you define pump head thrombosis? Do you routinely measure fibrinogen and D-dimers? Or is it a clinical/visual diagnosis? Does this prompt a circuit change?

Answer to #3:

• Pump head thrombosis is defined as a rapid and substantial increase in fHb (>300 mg/l) accompanied mostly by a rapid decrease in platelets and an abnormal noise/vibration of pump head. After circuit change the levels of fHb decreased and platelets normalized (Lubnow et al. 2014; PloS one 9 (12): 4112316). In these cases there was always a clot within the removed pump head.

• We routinely determine some coagulation factors such as fibrinogen, D-Dimers, platelets once a day. However, neither D-Dimers nor fibrinogen has any significance for the detection of a pump head thrombosis. This was described in detail in the study Lubnow et al. 2014; PloS one 9 (12): 4112316

• PHT as an acute event is always associated with an immediate change of system.

• We included the definition of a pump head thrombosis within the text including the reference.

Comment #4: Smaller cannulae (even if blood flow was not so high) do not seem to increase fHb. Is this because blood flow was reduced (i.e. we generally go up to 2.6 BFI with a 15F)? Please comment.

Answer to #4:

Yes, of course. A higher blood flow (BF) through a small-sized cannula (with a small diameter/radius) will increase flow velocity (FV).

BF = FV * Area of the cannula = FV * r2 *π

An increase in FV also increased shear rates and may increase the risk of RBC damage.

In the special case of VA ECMO, the usage of a 15 Fr cannula – the most commonly used cannula for VA ECMO - showed increased hemolysis at blood flow rates ≥3 l/min. The decision for a cannula depends on the clinical need for respiratory support of the patient. Sometimes the patient needs more at ECMO than initially thought. An exchange of the cannula (with a larger diameter) is avoided. Instead, the blood flow will be increased, which is associated with an increased risk of hemolysis as shown in the present study.

We included this comment in the discussion section.

Submitted filename: response_to_reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Dec 2019

Factors associated with hemolysis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) – Comparison of VA- versus VV ECMO

PONE-D-19-24231R1

Dear Dr. Lehle,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for all your comments. in the basis of the reviewers' evaluation i deemed the paper suitable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments were addressed by the Authors and the paper was edited accordingly. This reviewer has no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Fabio Sangalli, MD, FASE

10 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-24231R1

Factors associated with hemolysis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) – Comparison of VA- versus VV ECMO

Dear Dr. Lehle:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Andrea Ballotta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE