Ryan Ruiyang Ling1, Kollengode Ramanathan2,3, Wynne Hsing Poon1, Chuen Seng Tan4, Nicolas Brechot5,6, Daniel Brodie7, Alain Combes5,8, Graeme MacLaren1,9. 1. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. ram_ramanathan@nuhs.edu.sg. 3. Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit, National University Heart Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. ram_ramanathan@nuhs.edu.sg. 4. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Institut de Cardiologie, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. 6. Collège de France, Centre of Interdisciplinary Research in Biology, CNRS UMR7241, INSERM U1040, Paris, France. 7. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Centre and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, USA. 8. Sorbonne Université INSERM-UMRS 116, Institute of Cardio Metabolism and Nutrition, Paris, France. 9. Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit, National University Heart Centre, National University Hospital, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While recommended by international societal guidelines in the paediatric population, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as mechanical circulatory support for refractory septic shock in adults is controversial. We aimed to characterise the outcomes of adults with septic shock requiring VA ECMO, and identify factors associated with survival. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception until 1st June 2021, and included all relevant publications reporting on > 5 adult patients requiring VA ECMO for septic shock. Study quality and certainty in evidence were assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, respectively. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, duration of ECMO support, complications while on ECMO, and sources of sepsis. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 14 observational studies with 468 patients in the meta-analysis. Pooled survival was 36.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.6%-50.1%). Survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 20% (62.0%, 95%-CI: 51.6%-72.0%) was significantly higher than those with LVEF > 35% (32.1%, 95%-CI: 8.69%-60.7%, p = 0.05). Survival reported in studies from Asia (19.5%, 95%-CI: 13.0%-26.8%) was notably lower than those from Europe (61.0%, 95%-CI: 48.4%-73.0%) and North America (45.5%, 95%-CI: 16.7%-75.8%). GRADE assessment indicated high certainty of evidence for pooled survival. CONCLUSIONS: When treated with VA ECMO, the majority of patients with septic shock and severe sepsis-induced myocardial depression survive. However, VA ECMO has poor outcomes in adults with septic shock without severe left ventricular depression. VA ECMO may be a viable treatment option in carefully selected adult patients with refractory septic shock.
BACKGROUND: While recommended by international societal guidelines in the paediatric population, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as mechanical circulatory support for refractory septic shock in adults is controversial. We aimed to characterise the outcomes of adults with septic shock requiring VA ECMO, and identify factors associated with survival. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception until 1st June 2021, and included all relevant publications reporting on > 5 adult patients requiring VA ECMO for septic shock. Study quality and certainty in evidence were assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, respectively. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, duration of ECMO support, complications while on ECMO, and sources of sepsis. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 14 observational studies with 468 patients in the meta-analysis. Pooled survival was 36.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.6%-50.1%). Survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 20% (62.0%, 95%-CI: 51.6%-72.0%) was significantly higher than those with LVEF > 35% (32.1%, 95%-CI: 8.69%-60.7%, p = 0.05). Survival reported in studies from Asia (19.5%, 95%-CI: 13.0%-26.8%) was notably lower than those from Europe (61.0%, 95%-CI: 48.4%-73.0%) and North America (45.5%, 95%-CI: 16.7%-75.8%). GRADE assessment indicated high certainty of evidence for pooled survival. CONCLUSIONS: When treated with VA ECMO, the majority of patients with septic shock and severe sepsis-induced myocardial depression survive. However, VA ECMO has poor outcomes in adults with septic shock without severe left ventricular depression. VA ECMO may be a viable treatment option in carefully selected adult patients with refractory septic shock.
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Clifford S Deutschman; Christopher Warren Seymour; Manu Shankar-Hari; Djillali Annane; Michael Bauer; Rinaldo Bellomo; Gordon R Bernard; Jean-Daniel Chiche; Craig M Coopersmith; Richard S Hotchkiss; Mitchell M Levy; John C Marshall; Greg S Martin; Steven M Opal; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Tom van der Poll; Jean-Louis Vincent; Derek C Angus Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lukas Martin; Matthias Derwall; Sura Al Zoubi; Elisabeth Zechendorf; Daniel A Reuter; Chris Thiemermann; Tobias Schuerholz Journal: Chest Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Daniel Schwarzkopf; Hendrik Rüddel; Matthias Gründling; Christian Putensen; Konrad Reinhart Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Robert R Ehrman; Ashley N Sullivan; Mark J Favot; Robert L Sherwin; Christian A Reynolds; Aiden Abidov; Phillip D Levy Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Kristina E Rudd; Sarah Charlotte Johnson; Kareha M Agesa; Katya Anne Shackelford; Derrick Tsoi; Daniel Rhodes Kievlan; Danny V Colombara; Kevin S Ikuta; Niranjan Kissoon; Simon Finfer; Carolin Fleischmann-Struzek; Flavia R Machado; Konrad K Reinhart; Kathryn Rowan; Christopher W Seymour; R Scott Watson; T Eoin West; Fatima Marinho; Simon I Hay; Rafael Lozano; Alan D Lopez; Derek C Angus; Christopher J L Murray; Mohsen Naghavi Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-01-18 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Jan Bakker; Eduardo Kattan; Djillali Annane; Ricardo Castro; Maurizio Cecconi; Daniel De Backer; Arnaldo Dubin; Laura Evans; Michelle Ng Gong; Olfa Hamzaoui; Can Ince; Bruno Levy; Xavier Monnet; Gustavo A Ospina Tascón; Marlies Ostermann; Michael R Pinsky; James A Russell; Bernd Saugel; Thomas W L Scheeren; Jean-Louis Teboul; Antoine Vieillard Baron; Jean-Louis Vincent; Fernando G Zampieri; Glenn Hernandez Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Clark G Owyang; Claire Donnat; Daniel Brodie; Hayley B Gershengorn; May Hua; Nida Qadir; Joseph E Tonna Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.663