Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation versus Conventional Ventilator Support in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
11
Issued Date
2023-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
01252208
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85146444294
Journal Title
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand
Volume
106
Issue
1
Start Page
14
End Page
19
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand Vol.106 No.1 (2023) , 14-19
Suggested Citation
Foofuengmonkolkit K., Susupaus A., Udomkusonsri J., Songdechakraiwut T., Namchaisiri J., Sakiyalak P. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation versus Conventional Ventilator Support in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand Vol.106 No.1 (2023) , 14-19. 19. doi:10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/82602
Title
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation versus Conventional Ventilator Support in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an undesirable outcome of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been widely accepted as a rescue therapy for severe ARDS, its use in COVID-19-associated ARDS is still debated. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO or conventional ventilator support. Materials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study in Bangkok Heart Hospital, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Patients were divided into ECMO and non-ECMO or conventional ventilator support groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU stay, recovery time after extubation, and total length of hospital stay. Results: Of the 3,053 COVID-19 patients, 36 (1.18%) developed severe ARDS, which 12 were treated with VV-ECMO and 24 with a conventional ventilator. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the ECMO group at 58.3% versus 83.3% (p=0.126). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding was non-significantly more common in the ECMO group at 41.7% versus 25.0% (p=0.306) but there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis in the ECMO group at 0% versus 20.8% (p=0.088). There were no significant differences in any other complications. Six patients, including four in the ECMO group and two in the non-ECMO group underwent cytokine removal via HA330 hemoperfusion, but interleukin-6 did not decrease in these patients. Conclusion: VV-ECMO in COVID-19-associated ARDS patients did not significantly decreased mortality compared to conventional ventilator therapy. A multidisciplinary team should develop an optimal treatment plan for each COVID-19-associated ARDS patient.