Dataset Information

Ability of the respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score to predict survival for patients with COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS: a single-center retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: The respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score is used to predict survival for patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), but its performance in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. We evaluated the ability of the RESP score to predict survival for patients with both non-COVID 19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS managed with ECMO at our institution. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) analysis found the RESP score reasonably predicted survival in patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.68-0.83), but not patients with COVID-19 ARDS (AUC 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.66).

SUBMITTER: Pratt EH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10472724 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ability of the respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score to predict survival for patients with COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS: a single-center retrospective study.

Pratt Elias H EH Morrison Samantha S Green Cynthia L CL Rackley Craig R CR

Journal of intensive care 20230901 1

The respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score is used to predict survival for patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), but its performance in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unclear. We evaluated the ability of the RESP score to predict survival for patients with both non-COVID 19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS managed with ECMO at our institution. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) ...[more]

PMID: 37658447

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRESP score and PRESERVE score have been validated for veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in severe ARDS to assume individual mortality risk. ARDS patients with low-flow Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal, especially pumpless Extracorporeal Lung Assist, have also a high mortality rate, but there are no validated specific or general outcome scores. This retrospective study tested whether these established specific risk scores can be validated for pumpless Extracorporeal Lung Assist in ARDS patients in comparison to a general organ dysfunction score, the SOFA score.MethodsIn a retrospective single center cohort study we calculated and evaluated RESP, PRESERVE, and SOFA score for 73 ARDS patients with pumpless Extracorporeal Lung Assist treated between 2002 and 2016 using the XENIOS iLA Membrane Ventilator. Six patients had a mild, 40 a moderate and 27 a severe ARDS according to the Berlin criteria. Demographic data and hospital mortality as well as ventilator settings, hemodynamic parameters, and blood gas measurement before and during extracorporeal therapy were recorded.ResultsPumpless Extracorporeal Lung Assist of mechanical ventilated ARDS patients resulted in an optimized lung protective ventilation, significant reduction of PaCO2, and compensation of acidosis. Scoring showed a mean score of alive versus deceased patients of 3 ± 1 versus - 1 ± 1 for RESP (p < 0.01), 3 ± 0 versus 6 ± 0 for PRESERVE (p < 0.05) and 8 ± 1 versus 10 ± 1 for SOFA (p < 0.05). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, area under the curve (AUC) was 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.89, p < 0.01) for RESP score, 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.90, p < 0.0001) for PRESERVE score and 0.66 (95% CI 0.53-0.79, p < 0.05) for SOFA score.ConclusionsRESP and PRESERVE scores were superior to SOFA, as non-specific critical care score. Although scores were developed for veno-venous ECMO, we could validate RESP and PRESERVE score for pumpless Extracorporeal Lung Assist. In conclusion, RESP and PRESERVE score are suitable to estimate mortality risk of ARDS patients with an arterio-venous pumpless Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly burdened the global healthcare system since December 2019. Minority populations are found to have a higher incidence of hospitalization and higher mortality when compared to Caucasians. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is reserved for COVID-19 patients who develop respiratory failure refractory to conventional management. To our knowledge, no data has been reported on outcome differences between Minority COVID-19 patients and Caucasian COVID-19 patients managed with ECMO. We aimed to investigate the outcome differences between these two groups.MethodsOur retrospective cohort study had 23 adults (aged 18 and older) diagnosed with COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction. All patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), refractory to conventional treatment, and were managed on ECMO support. The primary outcome of interest was mortality; the secondary outcome was the rate of ECMO-related complications.ResultsThe overall mortality rate of our study was higher (70%) than other reports of the COVID-19 population on ECMO. Caucasians in our study had more severe respiratory acidosis with carbon dioxide retention and appeared to have a higher mortality rate of 85.7% compared to Minorities (62.5%). No differences in complication rates between these two groups were identified.ConclusionsOur cohort revealed a high overall mortality rate of COVID-19 patients on ECMO support. The Caucasian group was observed to have higher mortality than the Minority group. The high overall mortality was likely attributed to the Caucasian group, which had more severe respiratory acidosis before ECMO initiation, a known predictor of poor prognosis in ARDS patients. Our cohort's ethnic composition may also partially explain the high mortality rate since COVID-19 Minorities are reported to have worse outcomes than Caucasians. Larger and randomized studies are needed to investigate further the mortality and complication differences between Minority and Caucasian patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and managed by ECMO.

Project description:BackgroundThe high-quality evidence on managing COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is insufficient. Furthermore, there is little consensus on allocating ECMO resources when scarce. The paucity of evidence and the need for guidance on controversial topics required an international expert consensus statement to understand the role of ECMO in COVID-19 better. Twenty-two international ECMO experts worldwide work together to interpret the most recent findings of the evolving published research, statement formulation, and voting to achieve consensus.ObjectivesTo guide the next generation of ECMO practitioners during future pandemics on tackling controversial topics pertaining to using ECMO for patients with COVID-19-related severe ARDS.MethodsThe scientific committee was assembled of five chairpersons with more than 5 years of ECMO experience and a critical care background. Their roles were modifying and restructuring the panel's questions and, assisting with statement formulation in addition to expert composition and literature review. Experts are identified based on their clinical experience with ECMO (minimum of 5 years) and previous academic activity on a global scale, with a focus on diversity in gender, geography, area of expertise, and level of seniority. We used the modified Delphi technique rounds and the nominal group technique (NGT) through three face-to-face meetings and the voting on the statement was conducted anonymously. The entire process was planned to be carried out in five phases: identifying the gap of knowledge, validation, statement formulation, voting, and drafting, respectively.ResultsIn phase I, the scientific committee obtained 52 questions on controversial topics in ECMO for COVID-19, further reviewed for duplication and redundancy in phase II, resulting in nine domains with 32 questions with a validation rate exceeding 75% (Fig. 1). In phase III, 25 questions were used to formulate 14 statements, and six questions achieved no consensus on the statements. In phase IV, two voting rounds resulted in 14 statements that reached a consensus are included in four domains which are: patient selection, ECMO clinical management, operational and logistics management, and ethics.ConclusionThree years after the onset of COVID-19, our understanding of the role of ECMO has evolved. However, it is incomplete. Tota14 statements achieved consensus; included in four domains discussing patient selection, clinical ECMO management, operational and logistic ECMO management and ethics to guide next-generation ECMO providers during future pandemic situations.

Dataset Information

Ability of the respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score to predict survival for patients with COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS: a single-center retrospective study.

Publications

Ability of the respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP) score to predict survival for patients with COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS: a single-center retrospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets