Search

IMPORTANCE:. Prone positioning is associated with improved mortality in patients with moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and has been increasingly used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In patients with refractory hypoxemia, transfer to an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) center may improve outcome but may be challenging due to severely compromised gas exchange. Transport of these patients in prone position may be advantageous; however, there is a paucity of data on their outcomes. OBJECTIVES:. The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe the early outcomes of ARDS patients transported in prone position for evaluation at a regional ECMO center. A secondary objective was to examine the safety of their transport in the prone position. DESIGN:. Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:. This study used patient charts from Ornge and Toronto General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, between February 1, 2020, and November 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS:. Patient with ARDS transported in the prone position for ECMO evaluation to Toronto General Hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:. Descriptive analysis of patients transported in the prone position and their outcomes. RESULTS:. One hundred fifteen patients were included. Seventy-two received ECMO (63%) and 51 died (44%) with ARDS and sepsis as the most common listed causes of death. Patients were transported primarily for COVID-related indications (93%). Few patients required additional analgesia (8%), vasopressors (4%), or experienced clinically relevant desaturation during transport (2%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:. This cohort of patients with severe ARDS transported in prone position had outcomes ranging from similar to better compared with existing literature. Prone transport was performed safely with few complications or escalation in treatments. Prone transport to an ECMO center should be regarded as safe and potentially beneficial for patients with ARDS and refractory hypoxemia.

Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used increasingly to support patients who are in cardiogenic shock. Due to the risk of complications, prediction models may aid in identifying patients who would benefit most from VA-ECMO. One such model is the Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (SAVE) score. Therefore, we wanted to validate the utility of the SAVE score in a contemporary cohort of adult patients. Methods: Retrospective data were extracted from electronic health records of 120 patients with cardiogenic shock supported with VA-ECMO between 2011 and 2018. The SAVE score was calculated for each patient to predict survival to hospital discharge. We assessed the SAVE score calibration by comparing predicted vs observed survival at discharge. We assessed discrimination with the area under the receiver operating curve using logistic regression. Results: A total of 45% of patients survived to hospital discharge. Survivors had a significantly higher mean SAVE score (–9.3 ± 4.1 in survivors vs –13.1 ± 4.4, respectively; P = 0.001). SAVE score discrimination was adequate (c = 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.86; P < 0.001). SAVE score calibration was limited, as observed survival rates for risk classes II-V were higher in our cohort (II: 67% vs 58%; III: 78% vs 42%; IV: 61% vs 30%; and V: 29% vs 18%). Conclusions: The SAVE score underestimates survival in a contemporary North American cohort of adult patients with cardiogenic shock. Its inaccurate performance could lead to denying ECMO support to patients deemed to be too high risk. Further studies are needed to validate additional predictive models for patients requiring VA-ECMO. Résumé: Contexte: L’oxygénation extracorporelle veino-artérielle (ECMO-VA) est de plus en plus utilisée comme assistance pour les patients qui sont en choc cardiogène. En raison du risque de complications, des modèles de prédiction peuvent aider à déterminer quels patients bénéficieraient le plus d’une ECMO-VA. Le score SAVE (Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) est un modèle de ce genre. Par conséquent, nous voulions valider l’utilité du score SAVE dans une cohorte contemporaine de patients adultes. Méthodologie: Des données rétrospectives ont été extraites de dossiers médicaux électroniques de 120 patients atteints d’un choc cardiogène ayant reçu une ECMO-VA entre 2011 et 2018. Le score SAVE a été calculé pour chaque patient afin de prédire la survie au congé de l’hôpital. Nous avons évalué la calibration du score SAVE en comparant la survie prédite au moment du congé et la survie observée. Nous avons évalué la discrimination par l’aire sous la courbe opérationnelle chez le receveur en faisant appel à la régression logistique. Résultats: Au total, 45 % des patients ont survécu au congé de l’hôpital. Les survivants affichaient un score SAVE moyen considérablement plus élevé (–9,3 ± 4,1 chez les survivants vs –13,1 ± 4,4; p = 0,001). La discrimination par le score SAVE était adéquate (c = 0,77; intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 0,69 à 0,86; p < 0,001). La calibration du score SAVE était limitée, car les taux pour les classes de risque II à V étaient plus élevés dans notre cohorte (II : 67 % vs 58 %; III : 78 % vs 42 %; IV : 61 % vs 30 %; et V : 29 % vs 18 %). Conclusions: Le score SAVE sous-estime la survie dans une cohorte nord-américaine contemporaine de patients adultes atteints d’un choc cardiogène. L’inexactitude de ses résultats pourrait faire en sorte qu’une assistance par ECMO serait refusée à des patients jugés comme présentant un risque élevé. D’autres études sont nécessaires pour valider d’autres modèles de prédiction pour les patients ayant besoin d’une ECMO-VA.