To the Editor,
The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is still associated with high mortality [1], despite application of recent guidelines [2, 3]. The EOLIA study suggested that Extra- Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) could be effective in some of the most severe patients, but failed to demonstrate a 20% increase in survival [4]. One reason could be that criteria for selecting patients were only based on blood gas analysis. Our hypothesis is that adding other factors could allow a better selection of patients who could benefit from ECMO.
We took advantages to have a large multicentric cohort of patients under protective ventilation for moderate-to-severe ARDS [5] to determine the incidence, characteristics and outcome of patients eligible for ECMO according to EOLIA-based criteria and to identify patients who would benefit the most of the technique. ECMO was only used in these centers as a recue therapy.
Mechanical ventilation was applied in the volume-assist control mode, with a target tidal volume (TV) of 6–8 mL/kg (predicted body weight) and a plateau pressure < 30 cmH2O. Respiratory rate could be increased in case of high arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure (PaCO2). Prone positioning was left to the discretion of the attending physician, but was typically performed in patients with a PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg and/or an acute core pulmonale (ACP) [6]. Patients eligible for ECMO according to EOLIA-based criteria were identified as follows: PaO2/FiO2 < 80 mmHg with optimal PEEP, or a pH < 7.25 and PaCO2 > 60 mmHg with a respiratory rate ≥ 35 cycles/min, despite the use of prone positioning or nitric oxide inhalation.
Statistical analysis was performed with R.4.0.4. Patients eligible for ECMO were compared to the rest of the cohort. Continuous data, expressed as medians (interquartile ranges), were compared with Mann–Whitney test. Categorical variables, expressed as numbers and percentages, were compared using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test. To evaluate independent factors associated with ICU mortality in this identified subgroup of patients, significant or marginally significant (p < 0.10) bivariate risk factors were examined using univariate and multivariable backward stepwise mixed logistic regression stratified on the center. SAPS II was forced in the model.
752 patients were studied. Characteristics and outcome are given in the Table 1. 67 (9%) patients were potentially eligible for ECMO. They had lower PaO2/FiO2 (62 [55–72] versus 114 [90–120] mmHg: p < 0.01) and higher incidence of ACP (42% versus 20%, p < 0.001). Only 8 of them underwent the procedure. In-ICU mortality in the whole cohort was 36%. Causes of death in patients eligible for ECMO was multi-organ failure in 21 (68%), neurologic in 4 (13%) and ECMO complication in 3 (10%). Only 3 patients (10%) died from hypoxic cardiac arrest.
Characteristics and outcome of patients potentially eligible for ECMO according to ICU mortality are given in the Table 2. In multivariable analysis, severe right ventricular dilatation (right-to-left ventricle end-diastolic area ratio > 1) and driving pressure were the only factors associated with in-ICU mortality (OR [95% CI]: 5.62 [1.44–27.39], p = 0.02 and 1.14 [1.01–1.31], p = 0.04, respectively).
A limitation of our study is that eight patients of the cohort received ECMO as a rescue therapy, which may have influenced our results, especially since the technique is now safer when performed in expert centers. However, six of these eight patients died.
In conclusion, we report a 9% incidence of patients who reach the EOLIA-based criteria for ECMO in a large non-selected cohort of ARDS patients ventilated with moderate-to-severe ARDS. These patients exhibited higher driving pressure and more frequent right ventricle failure, both being independently associated with ICU mortality. How this subgroup of patients could be considered as the ideal target for ECMO selection strategy should better be evaluated in the future.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- ARDS:
-
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
- ECMO:
-
Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation
- TV:
-
Tidal Volume
- ACP:
-
Acute Core Pulmonale
- PEEP:
-
Positive End Expiratory Pressure
- SAPS II:
-
Simplified Acute Physiology Score II
- ICU:
-
Intensive Care Unit
- RRT:
-
Renal Replacement Therapy
- RVEDA:
-
Right Ventricular End-Diastolic Area
- LVDEA:
-
Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Area
References
Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788–800.
Fan E, Del Sorbo L, Goligher EC, Hodgson CL, Munshi L, Walkey AJ, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline: mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(9):1253–63.
Papazian L, Aubron C, Brochard L, Chiche J-D, Combes A, Dreyfuss D, et al. Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensive Care. 2019;9(1):69.
Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, Demoule A, Lavoué S, Guervilly C, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965–75.
Mekontso Dessap A, Boissier F, Charron C, Bégot E, Repessé X, Legras A, et al. Acute cor pulmonale during protective ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: prevalence, predictors, and clinical impact. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(5):862–70.
Vieillard-Baron A, Prin S, Chergui K, Dubourg O, Jardin F. Echo-Doppler demonstration of acute cor pulmonale at the bedside in the medical intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(10):1310–9.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MP and AVB designed the study; AMD, PV, PM, AL collected the data, MP did the statistical analysis, MP and AVB wrote the manuscript; all authors reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of participating centers as a component of standard of care and requirement for patient’s consent was waived.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
MP, PM, AL, PV declare no competing interest. AMD reports grants from Fischer Paykel, Baxter, and Ferring, and personal fees from Air Liquide, Amomed, and Addmedica, all outside the submitted work. AVB reports research Grant from GSK, outside the submitted work.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Petit, M., Mekontso-Dessap, A., Masi, P. et al. Evaluation of right ventricular function and driving pressure with blood gas analysis could better select patients eligible for VV ECMO in severe ARDS. Crit Care 25, 220 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03646-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03646-x