Sorbonne Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, AP-HP.
Sorbonne Université, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) Unité Mixte de Recherche (UMRS) 1166, Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, Paris, France.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 Aug 1;206(3):281-294. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202111-2495OC.
Whether patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-day mortality versus IMV only. Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO versus no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (Pa/Fi < 80 or Pa ⩾ 60 mm Hg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model on the basis of predefined variables. A total of 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability on Day 7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs. 83%; risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0-9%), which decreased during follow-up (survival on Day 90: 63% vs. 65%; risk difference, -2%; 95% confidence interval, -10 to 5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand and when initiated within the first 4 days of IMV and in patients who are profoundly hypoxemic. In an emulated trial on the basis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand.
对于患有冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的患者,与常规有创机械通气(IMV)相比,他们是否可以从体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)中获益尚不清楚。为了评估 ECMO 对 90 天死亡率的影响与仅 IMV 相比。在一项多中心队列研究中,我们对 4244 例危重症成人 COVID-19 患者进行了模拟,模拟了一项目标试验,比较了在 IMV 后 7 天内开始 ECMO 与不开始 ECMO 的治疗策略在严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征(Pa/Fi < 80 或 Pa ⩾ 60 mm Hg)患者中的应用。我们根据预先定义的变量,使用多变量 Cox 模型来控制混杂因素。共有 1235 例患者符合模拟试验的全部入选标准,其中 164 例患者开始接受 ECMO。从入选标准开始的第 7 天,ECMO 策略的生存概率更高(87%比 83%;风险差异,4%;95%置信区间,0-9%),但在随访期间(第 90 天的生存率:63%比 65%;风险差异,-2%;95%置信区间,-10 至 5%)有所下降。然而,在高容量 ECMO 中心或建立了专门的 ECMO 网络组织以处理高需求的地区,以及在 IMV 开始后前 4 天内和严重低氧血症患者中进行 ECMO 与生存率较高相关。在一项基于全国 COVID-19 队列的模拟试验中,我们发现与无 ECMO 策略相比,ECMO 的生存时间存在差异。然而,在高容量中心和专门组织了 ECMO 能力以处理高需求的地区进行 ECMO 时,ECMO 始终与更好的结果相关。