Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective analysis uncovers distinct infectious profiles in COVID-19 and influenza ARDS patients on V-V ECMO, indicating varied risks and pathogens.
BACKGROUND: Viral acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common cause of respiratory failure requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). Pulmonary bacterial superinfections, pulmonary aspergillosis, and viral infections or reactivations frequently occur, but data on their incidence, timing, and microbiological spectrum remain limited. We analyzed infectious complications in a large cohort of V-V ECMO-treated patients with viral ARDS. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients treated at University Hospital Regensburg (UKR) requiring V-V ECMO for COVID-19 (March 2020-May 2022) or influenza (May 2012-December 2022). RESULTS: We included 147 COVID-19 patients (median age 55.3 years; 77% male; SOFA score 9; V-V ECMO duration 23 days) and 72 influenza patients (median age 55.3 years; 53% male; SOFA score 13; V-V ECMO duration 16 days). COVID-19 patients showed higher cumulative incidences of pulmonary bacterial superinfection (61% vs 35%), aspergillosis (33% vs. 22%), CMV reactivation (18%vs. 4%) and HSV reactivation (49% vs. 26%), however incidence-density rates were comparable between groups with incidence rate ratios (IRR) of 1.10, 0.93, 1.36 and 1.12, respectively. First bacterial pulmonary infection occurred a median of 2 days after V-V ECMO initiation in COVID-19 and 1 day before initiation in influenza patients. Predominant bacterial pathogens were Klebsiella spp. (28%), Staphylococcus aureus (27%) and Escherichia coli (11%) in COVID-19, and Staphylococcus aureus (25%) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (25%) in influenza. CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19 requiring V-V ECMO showed a distinct trajectory of infectious complications compared to Influenza, particularly bacterial, HSV, CMV, and fungal infections, highlighting their infectious burden.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krais et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: