Why the study?
The association between ECMO and morbidity and mortality in adults with sepsis as a primary indication for intervention remained poorly defined.
Does extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) improve morbidity and mortality in adults with sepsis?
Does extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) improve morbidity and mortality in adults with sepsis?
Current evidence does not present well-defined patterns supporting the use of ECMO in adults with sepsis due to small sample sizes and disparate study designs.
Advanced age was associated with mortality in sepsis ECMO; hypothesis-generating and leaves open prospective validation before guiding selection.
We retrospectively reviewed all pertinent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) studies (January 1995 to September 2017) of adults with sepsis as a primary indication for intervention and its association with morbidity and mortality. Collected data included study type, ECMO configuration, outcomes, effect size, and other features. Advanced age was a risk factor for death. Compared with nonsurvivors, survivors had a lower median Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment score on day 3 (15 vs. 18, p = 0.01). Biomarkers in survivors and nonsurvivors, respectively, were peak lactate (from two studies: 4.5 vs. 15.1 mmol/L, p = 0.03; 3.6 ± 3.7 vs. 3.3 ± 2.4 mmol/L, p = 0.850) and procalcitonin levels (41 vs. 164 ng/ml, p = 0.008). Bacteremia was associated with catheter colonization, and 90.5% of a group without bloodstream infections survived to discharge; ECMO weaning was possible for less than half the bloodstream infection group. Myocarditis portended favorable outcomes for patients with sepsis who received ECMO. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used in immunosuppressed patients with refractory cardiopulmonary insufficiency from severe sepsis with successful weaning from ECMO for most patients. Overall survival varied substantially among studies (15.38-71.43%). Existing studies do not present well-defined patterns supporting use of ECMO in sepsis because of sample sizes and disparate study designs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sangli et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: