Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from rescue therapy to more reasonable indications

Christian Karagiannidis, Thomas Bein, Tobias Welte
European Respiratory Journal 2022 59: 2103262; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.03262-2021
Christian Karagiannidis
1ARDS and ECMO Centre Cologne-Merheim, Cologne, Germany
2Lunge Centre, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Christian.Karagiannidis@uni-wh.de
Thomas Bein
3Faculty of Medicine, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tobias Welte
4Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Tobias Welte
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Shedding new light on ECMO treatment in ARDS: moving from rescue therapy to a standardised treatment option with defined indications https://bit.ly/3zXAhyF

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to an unprecedented number of patients on mechanical ventilation, many of them presenting with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [1–4]. Depending on the resources of national healthcare systems, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was frequently applied during the pandemic [3, 5–7]. While intensive care unit experience improved with this new disease, various forms of drug therapies were introduced in living guidelines, resulting in a dynamic development in outcome of COVID-19 [8, 9]. Particularly noteworthy was the introduction of dexamethasone in the summer of 2020, and in 2021 the additional administration of tocilizumab in the early severe phase of the disease [10]. A third important factor that had a significant impact on the outcome of severe respiratory failure was the start of vaccination programmes, primarily for risk groups, depending on national strategies, followed by the general public.

Depending on the phase of the pandemic, different studies showed a variable outcome for COVID-19 patients treated with ECMO. While in the first wave the in-hospital mortality remained below 40% [11], after the summer 2020 a significant mortality increase was seen in many centres [5]. The latest data from the international ECMO registry (ELSO) showed a significant increase in hospital mortality of about 15% during the pandemic [7]. In addition, in the German healthcare system, which is without significant limitations to access (no governmental restrictions, high reimbursement of invasive procedures), there was a higher in-hospital mortality of about 70% over the entire pandemic. The main questions that therefore arise are 1) why did mortality increase in the later phases of the pandemic, and 2) why did some healthcare systems, such as Germany's, have such a high mortality?

Riera et al. [12] analysed some major risk factors in this issue of the European Respiratory Journal. Substantial factors were identified as being congruent worldwide, whereas others remain a matter of debate. Almost all studies show the most beneficial survival in patients under 50 years of age with a significant increase in mortality above 60 years of age. This is also evident in data from Germany, but age-stratified comparisons again show significant differences, such that not only age alone seems to play a major role. Furthermore, the work of Riera et al. [12], as well as data from the Greater Paris area [13] or from the last ELSO analysis [7], show that a high centre-associated experience, measured by the number of ECMO runs greater or less than 30 per year, has a significant influence on mortality. Experience and high-level routine thus seem to be one of the essential factors to reduce overall mortality. Somewhat incongruent also in the present work is the timing of ECMO initiation in relation to intubation; here it can be concluded from all available data that a very early initiation of the system, within the first 3 days, showed the best survival rates, while very late ECMO initiation showed a significantly higher mortality. However, timing alone cannot be used as a criterion for indication; other parameters, such as the stiffness of the lung or morphological changes on computed tomography, are needed. Furthermore, this raises the question if ECMO is still a rescue therapy or more or less the most invasive option to treat most severe hypoxaemic ARDS patients within its evidence-based indication.

In more detail, according to the values of medical ethics, physicians’ activities must be guided by two main principles: the indication and the patient's will. The indication to perform a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure (or to not!) is based on the careful assessment of a realistic rehabilitation of the patient in association with such a measure (e.g. ECMO), in order to allow the patient to continue life with a certain quality and to achieve a well-defined therapeutic goal, coordinated with the values and wishes of the individual patient. Since many guidelines claim the indication for ECMO as “rescue” or “ultima ratio” the above introduced definition of “indication” may be levered out (table 1). “Ultima ratio” (a phrase created in the Thirty Years’ War) could justify the use of ECMO under neglect of a careful and ethically valued indication. We assume that “rescue” and “ultima ratio” motivations may have contributed to a high mortality in patients treated with ECMO in some healthcare systems, such as Germany [4]. Thus, with all current evidence taken into account, the indication for ECMO should be based on a careful assessment of several anamnestic, biographic, medical and prognostic parameters (table 1) in each individual patient to avoid futile treatments, as well as a high in-hospital mortality.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

A gradual assessment of indications for implementation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

In summary, the main risk factors for poor survival are the age of the patient, previous experience of ECMO centres and pre-existing concomitant diseases. Hereby the indication for ECMO therapy moves more and more into focus, away from a rescue therapy to an extended standard therapy, which requires high expertise and an ethically based careful indication, and it has to be used with a sense of proportion. Even if its initiation remains an individual case-based decision, work such as that of Riera et al. [12] should be taken as an opportunity to develop dedicated criteria.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-03262-2021.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: C. Karagiannidis reports advisory fees from Xenios and lecture fees from Xenios and Getinge.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Bein has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Welte reports advisory fees from Xenios.

  • Received December 28, 2021.
  • Accepted January 3, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Karagiannidis C,
    2. Mostert C,
    3. Hentschker C, et al.
    Case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of 10 021 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 920 German hospitals: an observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 853–862. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30316-7
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Karagiannidis C,
    2. Windisch W,
    3. McAuley DF, et al.
    Major differences in ICU admissions during the first and second COVID-19 wave in Germany. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: e47–e48. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00101-6
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Karagiannidis C,
    2. Strassmann S,
    3. Merten M, et al.
    High in-hospital mortality in COVID patients receiving ECMO in Germany – a critical analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 204: 991–994. doi:10.1164/rccm.202105-1145LE
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Karagiannidis C,
    2. Slutsky AS,
    3. Bein T, et al.
    Complete countrywide mortality in COVID patients receiving ECMO in Germany throughout the first three waves of the pandemic. Crit Care 2021; 25: 413. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03831-y
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Broman LM,
    2. Eksborg S,
    3. Coco VL, et al.
    Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 during first and second waves. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: e80–e81. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00262-9
    OpenUrl
    1. Barbaro RP,
    2. MacLaren G,
    3. Boonstra PS, et al.
    Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19: an international cohort study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. Lancet 2020; 396: 1071–1078. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32008-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Barbaro RP,
    2. MacLaren G,
    3. Boonstra PS, et al.
    Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: evolving outcomes from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. Lancet 2021; 398: 1230–1238. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01960-7
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Malin JJ,
    2. Spinner CD,
    3. Janssens U, et al.
    Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: key pharmacologic recommendations from a national German living guideline using an Evidence to Decision Framework (last updated 17.05.2021). Infection 2022; 50: 93–106. doi:10.1007/s15010-021-01645-2
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Kluge S,
    2. Malin JJ,
    3. Fichtner F, et al.
    Clinical practice guideline: recommendations on the in-hospital treatment of patients with COVID-19. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2021; 118: 865–871. doi:10.3238/arztebl.m2021.0374
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. The Recovery Collaborative Group
    . Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020; 384: 693–704. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Ramanathan K,
    2. Shekar K,
    3. Ling RR, et al.
    Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2021; 25: 211. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03634-1
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Riera J,
    2. Alcántara S,
    3. Bonilla C, et al.
    Risk factors for mortality in patients with COVID-19 needing extracorporeal respiratory support. Eur Respir J 2022; 59: 2102463.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Lebreton G,
    2. Schmidt M,
    3. Ponnaiah M, et al.
    Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation network organisation and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Greater Paris, France: a multicentre cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: 851–862. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00096-5
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 59 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 59 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from rescue therapy to more reasonable indications
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from rescue therapy to more reasonable indications
Christian Karagiannidis, Thomas Bein, Tobias Welte
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2022, 59 (2) 2103262; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.03262-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
ECMO during the COVID-19 pandemic: moving from rescue therapy to more reasonable indications
Christian Karagiannidis, Thomas Bein, Tobias Welte
European Respiratory Journal Feb 2022, 59 (2) 2103262; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.03262-2021
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Nintedanib in chILD: a small step
  • GM-CSF targeting in COVID-19
  • EBAP: reflections on 20 years of CME in respiratory medicine
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society