Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill adults.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 09 2023
26 09 2023
Historique:
pmc-release:
26
09
2024
medline:
27
9
2023
pubmed:
26
9
2023
entrez:
26
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may provide benefit in certain populations of adults, including those with severe cardiac failure, severe respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest. However, it is also associated with serious short- and long-term complications, and there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice. Recently several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published, therefore, we undertook an update of our previous systematic review published in 2014. To evaluate whether venovenous (VV), venoarterial (VA), or ECMO cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improve mortality compared to conventional cardiopulmonary support in critically ill adults. We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2022. The search was limited to English language only. We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs that compared VV ECMO, VA ECMO or ECPR to conventional support in critically ill adults. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. all-cause mortality at day 90 to one year. Our secondary outcomes were 2. length of hospital stay, 3. survival to discharge, 4. disability, 5. adverse outcomes/safety events, 6. health-related quality of life, 7. longer-term health status, and 8. cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with four new studies being added to the original review (total 757 participants). Two studies were of VV ECMO (429 participants), one VA ECMO (41 participants), and two ECPR (285 participants). Four RCTs had a low risk of bias and one was unclear, and the overall certainty of the results (GRADE score) was moderate, reduced primarily due to indirectness of the study populations and interventions. ECMO was associated with a reduction in 90-day to one-year mortality compared to conventional treatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 0.92; P = 0.002, I In this updated systematic review, which included four additional RCTs, we found that ECMO was associated with a reduction in day-90 to one-year all-cause mortality, as well as three times increased risk of bleeding. However, the certainty of this result was only low to moderate, limited by a low number of small trials, clinical heterogeneity, and indirectness across studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may provide benefit in certain populations of adults, including those with severe cardiac failure, severe respiratory failure, and cardiac arrest. However, it is also associated with serious short- and long-term complications, and there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice. Recently several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published, therefore, we undertook an update of our previous systematic review published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate whether venovenous (VV), venoarterial (VA), or ECMO cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improve mortality compared to conventional cardiopulmonary support in critically ill adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2022. The search was limited to English language only.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs that compared VV ECMO, VA ECMO or ECPR to conventional support in critically ill adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. all-cause mortality at day 90 to one year. Our secondary outcomes were 2. length of hospital stay, 3. survival to discharge, 4. disability, 5. adverse outcomes/safety events, 6. health-related quality of life, 7. longer-term health status, and 8. cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria, with four new studies being added to the original review (total 757 participants). Two studies were of VV ECMO (429 participants), one VA ECMO (41 participants), and two ECPR (285 participants). Four RCTs had a low risk of bias and one was unclear, and the overall certainty of the results (GRADE score) was moderate, reduced primarily due to indirectness of the study populations and interventions. ECMO was associated with a reduction in 90-day to one-year mortality compared to conventional treatment (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 0.92; P = 0.002, I
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this updated systematic review, which included four additional RCTs, we found that ECMO was associated with a reduction in day-90 to one-year all-cause mortality, as well as three times increased risk of bleeding. However, the certainty of this result was only low to moderate, limited by a low number of small trials, clinical heterogeneity, and indirectness across studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37750499
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010381.pub3
pmc: PMC10521169
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD010381Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
EuroIntervention. 2021 Feb 05;16(15):e1227-e1236
pubmed: 33106225
Crit Care Med. 2019 Nov;47(11):1557-1563
pubmed: 31389837
Ann Emerg Med. 2021 Jul;78(1):92-101
pubmed: 33541748
Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Feb;7(2):163-172
pubmed: 30642776
Lancet. 2020 Dec 5;396(10265):1807-1816
pubmed: 33197396
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Apr 16;8(8):e011991
pubmed: 30947630
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Jan;8(1):1-8
pubmed: 30854307
N Engl J Med. 1972 Mar 23;286(12):629-34
pubmed: 5060491
Circ Heart Fail. 2018 Sep;11(9):e004905
pubmed: 30354364
Intensive Care Med. 2013 May;39(5):847-56
pubmed: 23306584
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Mar 18;5(3):e002819
pubmed: 26994129
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222
pubmed: 33069326
J Crit Care. 2013 Dec;28(6):998-1005
pubmed: 23954453
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8
pubmed: 10793162
Intensive Care Med. 2019 May;45(5):592-600
pubmed: 30790030
Resuscitation. 2018 Oct;131:91-100
pubmed: 30063963
Poumon Coeur. 1974;30(1):63-71
pubmed: 4427873
Anesthesiology. 1997 Jun;86(6):1254-61
pubmed: 9197293
J Crit Care. 2019 Oct;53:32-37
pubmed: 31181462
Perfusion. 2021 May;36(4):388-394
pubmed: 32781894
JAMA. 2021 Sep 21;326(11):1013-1023
pubmed: 34463700
JAMA. 2022 Feb 22;327(8):737-747
pubmed: 35191923
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 22;1:CD010381
pubmed: 25608845
JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):788-800
pubmed: 26903337
Am Heart J. 2021 Apr;234:1-11
pubmed: 33428901
Crit Care Resusc. 2013 Sep;15(3):172-8
pubmed: 23944202
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Feb;149(2 Pt 1):295-305
pubmed: 8306022
JAMA. 1979 Nov 16;242(20):2193-6
pubmed: 490805
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 24;378(21):1965-1975
pubmed: 29791822
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014 Feb;20(1):86-91
pubmed: 24322337
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Nov;46(11):2048-2057
pubmed: 33021684
Clin Chest Med. 2000 Sep;21(3):555-61
pubmed: 11019727
Crit Care. 2020 Aug 17;24(1):505
pubmed: 32807207
Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):e56-e528
pubmed: 30700139
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Dec 23;6:163
pubmed: 17187683
JAMA. 2022 Feb 01;327(5):442-453
pubmed: 35103766
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018 Nov;46(6):555-557
pubmed: 30447660
Resuscitation. 2017 Mar;112:34-40
pubmed: 27993632
Crit Care Med. 2021 Dec 1;49(12):e1252-e1254
pubmed: 34074857
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 May 14;73(18):2355-2357
pubmed: 31072581
Clin Res Cardiol. 2021 Sep;110(9):1412-1420
pubmed: 33180150
ASAIO J. 2011 May-Jun;57(3):164-8
pubmed: 21427564
Am Heart J. 2019 Apr;210:58-68
pubmed: 30738245
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Jul;43(7):992-1001
pubmed: 28534110
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 23;6:34208
pubmed: 27659306
Crit Care. 2021 Jun 14;25(1):211
pubmed: 34127027
JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320(21):2251-2259
pubmed: 30347031
Med Intensiva. 2012 Apr;36(3):193-9
pubmed: 22341559
Pharmacoecon Open. 2021 Dec;5(4):613-623
pubmed: 34060061
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2008 Mar;36(2):152-61
pubmed: 18361004
Lancet. 2009 Oct 17;374(9698):1351-63
pubmed: 19762075
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jul;14(35):1-46
pubmed: 20642916
Artif Organs. 2022 May;46(5):755-762
pubmed: 35199375
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):51
pubmed: 28500585
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 14;9(10):e031697
pubmed: 31615800
Crit Care. 2021 Jul 14;25(1):246
pubmed: 34261492
Intensive Care Med. 2016 May;42(5):712-724
pubmed: 27007108