| Literature DB >> 35537972 |
Gianluca Paternoster1, Pietro Bertini2, Alessandro Belletti3, Giovanni Landoni4, Serena Gallotta5, Diego Palumbo6, Alessandro Isirdi7, Fabio Guarracino8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of an awake venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) management strategy in preventing clinically relevant barotrauma in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at high risk for pneumothorax (PNX)/pneumomediastinum (PMD), defined as the detection of the Macklin-like effect on chest computed tomography (CT) scan.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Macklin effect; acute respiratory distress syndrome; barotrauma; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; mechanical ventilation
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35537972 PMCID: PMC8926433 DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2022.03.011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ISSN: 1053-0770 Impact factor: 2.894
Fig 1Macklin-like radiologic sign on lung parenchyma window chest computed tomography scans (red arrows). (A) A crescent collection of air contiguous to the right main bronchus (coronal view) to the (B) left inferior lobar bronchovascular bundle, and (C) within the main right fissure.
Fig 2Awake ECMO implantation algorithm. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. CT, computed tomography; EMCO,
Baseline Characteristics of Patients Who Received Awake ECMO Without Invasive Ventilation
| Characteristic | Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 | Pt 4 | Pt 5 | Pt 6 | Pt 7 | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | M | M | M | M | F | M | F | |
| Age, y | 62 | 67 | 32 | 57 | 57 | 41 | 46 | |
| Weight, kg | 120 | 100 | 85 | 90 | 70 | 87 | 67 | |
| Height, cm | 175 | 170 | 180 | 180 | 165 | 170 | 151 | |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 39.1 | 34.6 | 26.2 | 27.7 | 25.7 | 29.4 | 24.6 | |
| Comorbidities | ||||||||
COPD | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | 2 (28.5%) |
CKD | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | 1 (14.3%) |
Hypertension | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | 3 (42.8%) |
| Concomitant treatment | ||||||||
Antibiotics | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6 (85.7%) |
Antiviral | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | 2 (28.5%) |
Vasopressors | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | 3 (42.8%) |
Inotropes | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | 1 (14.3%) |
Pronation | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | 1 (14.3%) |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CKD, chronic kidney disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Pt, patient.
only before ECMO.
Fig 3Noninvasive ventilation strategies prior to ECMO implantation. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; HFNC, high-flow nasal cannula; PEEP, positive end expiratory pressure.
ECMO setting, complications, and outcome
| Blood gas analysis at time of ECMO implantation | |
PaO2, mmHg – mean ± SD | 53 ± 9.0 |
PaCO2, mmHg – mean ± SD | 47 ± 5.1 |
FiO2, % – mean ± SD | 72 ± 48.3 |
pH – mean ± SD | 7.41 ± 0.11 |
PaO2/FiO2, mmHg/% – mean ± SD | 56 ± 8.9 |
| ECMO details | |
NIV during ECMO – no. (%) | 7 (100%) |
Femoro-femoral cannulation – no. (%) | 4 (57.1%) |
Femoro-jugular cannulation – no. (%) | 2 (28.5%) |
Double lumen internal jugular cannulation – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
| Complications | |
Any complication – no. (%) | 4 (57.1%) |
MOF – no. (%) | 2 (28,5%) |
Septic shock – no. (%) | 2 (28.5%) |
Acute kidney injury – no. (%) | 2 (28.6%) |
Hemorrhagic stroke/intracranial bleeding – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
Seizures – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
Delirium – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
Gastrointestinal bleeding – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
Ileus – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
Lung bleeding – no. (%) | 2 (28.5%) |
Secondary pulmonary infection – no. (%) | 3 (42.8%) |
| Outcomes | |
Pneumothorax – no. (%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Pneumomediastinum – no. (%) | 0 (0.0%) |
Need for intubation – no. (%) | 2 (28.5%) |
Tracheostomy – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
ECMO failure – no. (%) | 1 (14.2%) |
ECMO weaning – no. (%) | 5 (71.4%) |
Death – no. (%) | 2 (28.6%) |
| Length of stay | |
Time from symptoms onset to ICU admission, days – median (IQR) | 5 (1-10) |
Time from ICU admission to ECMO implantation – median (IQR) | 7 (1-20) |
Duration of ECMO support – median (IQR) | 15 (2-61) |
ICU length of stay – median (IQR) | 29 (2-47) |
Hospital length of stay – median (IQR) | 32 (4-47) |
ECMO: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; ICU: intensive care unit; IQR: interquartile range; MOF: multiple organ failure; NIV: non-invasive ventilation; PaCO2: arterial partial carbon dioxide tension; PaO2: arterial partial oxygen tension
Advantages and Disadvantages of Awake Spontaneous Breathing During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Prevention of barotrauma | Only performed in experienced ECMO centers |
| Maintenance of respiratory muscles and diaphragm tone; less impact on functional residual capacity | High work of breathing with increase in oxygen demand and CO2 production |
| Less V/Q mismatch | Risk of high transpulmonary pressure with the risk of patient self-induced lung injury |
| Improved venous return due to negative inspiratory pressure | Difficulty in monitoring ventilation parameters and airway pressures |
| Less sedation | Collapse in IVC during inspiration with difficulties in maintaining ECMO flow |
| Patient cooperation to treatment | Need for highly skilled teams |
| Possible reduction of secondary respiratory infections (VAP) | Need for 1:1 nursing |
| Patients can follow rehabilitation, exercise training and nutrition | Higher costs of care |
| Patients can better interact with relatives and staff | Need for anticoagulation |
Abbreviations: ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; IVC, inferior vena cava; P-SILI, patient self-induced lung injury; VAP, ventilator-associated pneumonia; V/Q, ventilation/perfusion.