Survival difference in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 vs. non-COVID ARDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Minerva anestesiologica Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-04 DOI:10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18219-3
Pietro Bertini, Alberto Marabotti, Fabio Sangalli, Gianluca Paternoster
{"title":"Survival difference in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19 vs. non-COVID ARDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Pietro Bertini, Alberto Marabotti, Fabio Sangalli, Gianluca Paternoster","doi":"10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18219-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the need for effective management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). This meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness and outcomes of ECMO in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus those with non-COVID ARDS, assessing its role in different respiratory virus infections.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and other relevant databases up to June 30, 2023, to identify studies comparing ECMO use in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS cases. This analysis adheres to PRISMA guidelines, with studies rigorously selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed for bias using validated tools.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>The meta-analysis included 24 studies with 2,121 patients, revealing that non-COVID ARDS patients treated with ECMO had a lower mortality risk compared to those with COVID-19 ARDS. Specifically, the overall pooled risk difference in survival was -0.11 (95% CI: -0.17 to -0.05, P<0.001), indicating a statistically significant advantage for non-COVID patients. The standardized mean difference for ECMO duration was significantly longer in COVID-19 patients (SMD=0.70, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.08, P<0.001), reflecting more prolonged treatment needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ECMO serves as a vital intervention in severe ARDS, with differential effectiveness observed between COVID-19 and non-COVID patients. The study's findings underline the need for precise patient selection and tailored ECMO application across different viral etiologies. These insights are crucial for enhancing clinical strategies and resource allocation during ongoing and future pandemics.</p>","PeriodicalId":18522,"journal":{"name":"Minerva anestesiologica","volume":" ","pages":"1139-1150"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva anestesiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18219-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasized the need for effective management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). This meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness and outcomes of ECMO in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus those with non-COVID ARDS, assessing its role in different respiratory virus infections.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and other relevant databases up to June 30, 2023, to identify studies comparing ECMO use in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS cases. This analysis adheres to PRISMA guidelines, with studies rigorously selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed for bias using validated tools.

Evidence synthesis: The meta-analysis included 24 studies with 2,121 patients, revealing that non-COVID ARDS patients treated with ECMO had a lower mortality risk compared to those with COVID-19 ARDS. Specifically, the overall pooled risk difference in survival was -0.11 (95% CI: -0.17 to -0.05, P<0.001), indicating a statistically significant advantage for non-COVID patients. The standardized mean difference for ECMO duration was significantly longer in COVID-19 patients (SMD=0.70, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.08, P<0.001), reflecting more prolonged treatment needs.

Conclusions: ECMO serves as a vital intervention in severe ARDS, with differential effectiveness observed between COVID-19 and non-COVID patients. The study's findings underline the need for precise patient selection and tailored ECMO application across different viral etiologies. These insights are crucial for enhancing clinical strategies and resource allocation during ongoing and future pandemics.

体外膜氧合治疗COVID-19与非COVID-19 ARDS患者的生存差异:系统回顾和荟萃分析
COVID-19大流行强调了使用静脉-静脉体外膜氧合(VV-ECMO)有效管理严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的必要性。本荟萃分析旨在比较ECMO在COVID-19 ARDS患者与非COVID-19 ARDS患者中的疗效和结果,评估其在不同呼吸道病毒感染中的作用。证据获取:截至2023年6月30日,在PubMed、Web of Science和其他相关数据库中进行了系统检索,以确定比较COVID-19和非COVID-19 ARDS病例使用ECMO的研究。该分析遵循PRISMA指南,根据预定义的纳入和排除标准严格选择研究,并使用经过验证的工具评估偏倚。证据综合:荟萃分析包括24项研究,涉及2121例患者,结果显示,与COVID-19 ARDS患者相比,接受ECMO治疗的非COVID-19 ARDS患者的死亡风险较低。具体而言,总体合并生存风险差异为-0.11 (95% CI: -0.17至-0.05)。结论:ECMO可作为严重ARDS的重要干预措施,在COVID-19和非COVID-19患者中观察到不同的有效性。该研究结果强调了针对不同病毒病因进行精确患者选择和量身定制ECMO应用的必要性。这些见解对于在当前和未来大流行期间加强临床战略和资源分配至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva anestesiologica
Minerva anestesiologica 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Anestesiologica is the journal of the Italian National Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care. Minerva Anestesiologica publishes scientific papers on Anesthesiology, Intensive care, Analgesia, Perioperative Medicine and related fields. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信