Outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a prospective observational study.
Devenir des patient·es atteint·es d’insuffisance respiratoire n’ayant pas pu recevoir une oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle : une étude observationnelle prospective.
extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
outcome
referral pattern
respiratory failure
Journal
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie
ISSN: 1496-8975
Titre abrégé: Can J Anaesth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8701709
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2023
07 2023
Historique:
received:
18
05
2022
accepted:
28
11
2022
revised:
28
11
2022
medline:
27
7
2023
pubmed:
7
6
2023
entrez:
6
6
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Descriptive information on referral patterns and short-term outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is lacking. We conducted a prospective single-centre observational cohort study of ECMO referrals to Toronto General Hospital (receiving hospital) for severe respiratory failure (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19), between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2020. Data related to the referral, the referral decision, and reasons for refusal were collected. Reasons for refusal were grouped into three mutually exclusive categories selected a priori: "too sick now," "too sick before," and "not sick enough." In declined referrals, referring physicians were surveyed to collect patient outcome on day 7 after the referral. The primary study endpoints were referral outcome (accepted/declined) and patient outcome (alive/deceased). A total of 193 referrals were included; 73% were declined for transfer. Referral outcome was influenced by age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 0.96; P < 0.01) and involvement of other members of the ECMO team in the discussion (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.28 to 15.2; P < 0.01). Patient outcomes were missing in 46 (24%) referrals (inability to locate the referring physician or the referring physician being unable to recall the outcome). Using available data (95 declined and 52 accepted referrals; n = 147), survival to day 7 was 49% for declined referrals (35% for patients deemed "too sick now," 53% for "too sick before," 100% for "not sick enough," and 50% for reason for refusal not reported) and 98% for transferred patients. Sensitivity analysis setting missing outcomes to directional extreme values retained robustness of survival probabilities. Nearly half of the patients declined for ECMO consideration were alive on day 7. More information on patient trajectory and long-term outcomes in declined referrals is needed to refine selection criteria. RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: On manque d’informations descriptives sur les schémas de références et les devenirs à court terme des patient·es atteint·es d’insuffisance respiratoire n’ayant pas pu recevoir une oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle (ECMO). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte observationnelle prospective monocentrique sur les références vers l’ECMO à l’Hôpital général de Toronto (hôpital d’accueil) pour insuffisance respiratoire grave (COVID-19 et non-COVID-19), entre le 1
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(fre)
RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: On manque d’informations descriptives sur les schémas de références et les devenirs à court terme des patient·es atteint·es d’insuffisance respiratoire n’ayant pas pu recevoir une oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle (ECMO). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte observationnelle prospective monocentrique sur les références vers l’ECMO à l’Hôpital général de Toronto (hôpital d’accueil) pour insuffisance respiratoire grave (COVID-19 et non-COVID-19), entre le 1
Identifiants
pubmed: 37280459
doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02501-7
pii: 10.1007/s12630-023-02501-7
pmc: PMC10243882
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1226-1233Informations de copyright
© 2023. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.
Références
Combes A, Peek GJ, Hajage D, et al. ECMO for severe ARDS: systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 2048–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06248-3
doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06248-3
pubmed: 33021684
pmcid: 7537368
Munshi L, Walkey A, Goligher E, Pham T, Uleryk EM, Fan E. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 163–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(18)30452-1
doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(18)30452-1
pubmed: 30642776
Combes A, Schmidt M, Hodgson CL, et al. Extracorporeal life support for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 2464–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06290-1
doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06290-1
pubmed: 33140180
pmcid: 7605473
Fan E, Beitler JR, Brochard L, et al. COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: is a different approach to management warranted? Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 816–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30304-0
doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30304-0
pubmed: 32645311
pmcid: 7338016
Bullen EC, Teijeiro-Paradis R, Fan E. How I select which patients with ARDS should be treated with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Chest 2020; 158: 1036–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.016
doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.04.016
pubmed: 32330459
Tonna JE, Abrams D, Brodie D, et al. Management of adult patients supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO): guideline from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). ASAIO J 2021; 67: 601–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/mat.0000000000001432
doi: 10.1097/mat.0000000000001432
pubmed: 33965970
pmcid: 8315725
Gillon SA, Rowland K, Shankar-Hari M, et al. Acceptance and transfer to a regional severe respiratory failure and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) service: predictors and outcomes. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 177–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.14083
doi: 10.1111/anae.14083
pubmed: 29168568
Lebreton G, Schmidt M, Ponnaiah M, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation network organisation and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Greater Paris, France: a multicentre cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 9: 851–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00096-5
doi: 10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00096-5
pubmed: 33887246
pmcid: 8055207
Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, Maldonado G, McCandless LC, Greenland S. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2014; 43: 1969–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu149
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu149
pubmed: 25080530
Smith LH, VanderWeele TJ. Bounding bias due to selection. Epidemiology 2019; 30: 509–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0000000000001032
doi: 10.1097/ede.0000000000001032
pubmed: 31033690
pmcid: 6553568
Rocker G, Cook D, Sjokvist P, et al. Clinician predictions of intensive care unit mortality. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 1149–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000126402.51524.52
doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000126402.51524.52
pubmed: 15190965
Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 1351–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61069-2
doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61069-2
pubmed: 19762075
Levy D, Lebreton G, Pineton de Chambrun M, et al. Outcomes of Patients denied extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Greater Paris, France. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2021; 204: 994–7. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202105-1312le
Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1965–75. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1800385
doi: 10.1056/nejmoa1800385
pubmed: 29791822