Majithia-Beet Gavin, Naemi Roozbeh, Issitt Richard
Department of Perfusion, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK.
School of Health, Science and Wellbeing, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Perfusion. 2023 Oct;38(7):1340-1348. doi: 10.1177/02676591221115267. Epub 2022 Jul 13.
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) therapy for respiratory failure is an increasingly popular modality of support. Patient selection is an important aspect of outcome success. This review assesses the efficacy of the popular prognostic tools Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction Score (RESP) and Predicting Death for Severe ARDS on VV-ECMO score (PRESERVE) for ECMO patient selection. METHODS: A literature search was performed. Six publications were found to match the specified selection criteria. These publications were assessed and compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve statistical method to ascertain the discriminatory ability of the models to predict treatment outcome. RESULTS: Six articles were included in this review from 306 screened, of which all were retrospective cohort studies. Data was generated over a period of 3-9 years from 13 referring hospitals. Studies consisted of 467 male and 221 female (30 unknown) participants in total with a high heterogeneity. The PRESERVE prognostic model was found to have a higher AUROC score than the RESP model, however both models were found to be sub-optimal in their discriminatory ability. A high chance of bias was seen across all included studies. CONCLUSION: It was the findings of this review, indicated by analysis using the AUROC measures, that the prognostic model PRESERVE performed better than RESP for predicting post ECMO therapy outcomes, for patients presenting with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome within their respective validated time frames, i.e., RESP at Intensive care unit (ICU) discharge and PRESERVE at 6 months post ICU discharge. However, It was recognized that comparator groups were small thereby introducing bias into the study. Further prospective, randomized studies would be necessary to effectively assess the utility of these predictive survival scores.
背景:体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)治疗呼吸衰竭是一种越来越受欢迎的支持方式。患者选择是治疗成功的一个重要方面。本综述评估了用于ECMO患者选择的常用预后工具——呼吸ECMO生存预测评分(RESP)和重度急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者接受静脉-静脉ECMO治疗的死亡预测评分(PRESERVE)的有效性。 方法:进行文献检索。发现有6篇出版物符合指定的选择标准。使用受试者工作特征(AUROC)曲线统计方法对这些出版物进行评估和比较,以确定模型预测治疗结果的鉴别能力。 结果:本综述从306篇筛选的文章中纳入了6篇,所有文章均为回顾性队列研究。数据来自13家转诊医院,时间跨度为3至9年。研究总共包括467名男性和221名女性(30名性别未知)参与者,异质性较高。发现PRESERVE预后模型的AUROC评分高于RESP模型,然而,两个模型的鉴别能力均未达到最佳。在所有纳入的研究中都发现存在较高的偏倚可能性。 结论:本综述的结果通过AUROC测量分析表明,对于在各自验证时间范围内出现急性呼吸窘迫综合征的患者,即重症监护病房(ICU)出院时的RESP评分和ICU出院后6个月的PRESERVE评分,在预测ECMO治疗后结果方面,预后模型PRESERVE比RESP表现更好。然而,认识到比较组规模较小,从而在研究中引入了偏倚。需要进一步开展前瞻性随机研究,以有效评估这些预测生存评分的效用。
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024-6-1