ObjectiveTo evaluate the monitoring value of brain injury biomarkers in the patients during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and CBM from inception of each database to May 2015 to identify randomized controlled trials, or case-control trials, or cohort trials of brain injury biomarkers predict brain injury during ECMO. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 12.0 software. ResultsFour retrospective trials were included. The results showed that compared with patients without brain injury, the patients with brain injury had a higher level of S100B protein (P < 0.05). The incidence of major neurological events was higher for high neuron-specific enolase level patients than mild-to-moderate neuron-specific enolase level patients (85% vs. 29%, P=0.01). The incidence of brain injury was higher for normal glial fibrillary acidic protein level than patients with glial fibrillary acidic protein > 0.436 ng/ml (OR=11.5, 95%CI 1.3-98.3). ConclusionsBrain injury biomarkers may be used as an indicator for earlier diagnosis of brain injury in patients during ECMO.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched for studies on ECMO for COVID-19 from December 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2020. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 24 studies were included, involving 1 576 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients with COVID-19. The overall mortality of patients was 27.3% (430/1 576). The rate of ECMO treatment was 4.68% (379/1576), and the survival rate was 69.4% (263/379). The mean duration of mechanical ventilation prior to ECMO treatment for ARDS patients ranged from 2.07±0.40 to 15.89±13.0 days, compared with 1.64±0.78 days and 29.9±3.60 days for ECMO treatment. Of the 11 studies included in the meta-analysis, 84.0% (405/482) patients with ARDS received conventional treatment with COVID-19, and 16.0% (77/482) received ECMO treatment on the basis of conventional treatment with ARDS. Results of meta-analysis showed that there was statistically significant difference in the survival rate of ARDS patients with COVID-19 treated with conventional therapy combined with ECMO or with conventional therapy alone (RR=1.27, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.62, P=0.05).ConclusionsThis study suggests that the survival rate of COVID-19 patients after ECMO treatment has a tendency to improve. Due to the limitation of quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more high-quality studies.
Objective To investigate the predictive value of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) pre-computer multiple scoring systems in the mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on 100 patients with cardiogenic shock due to various reasons who were treated with veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) from July 2020 to July 2022. The patients were followed up for 30 days and divided into a survival group (35 cases) and a death group (65 cases) according to whether they survived 30 days after withdrawal. General clinical data, blood biochemistry data within 24 hours before ECMO, ventilator parameters, past medical history and other data were collected, and sequential organ failure score (SOFA) before VA-ECMO, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ (APACHEⅡ), survival after veno-arterial ECMO (SAVE) score and modified SAVE score were calculated. Blood biochemical indicators and clinical scores related to patient prognosis were screened using two-independent sample t test or Man-Whitney U test. The predictive efficacy of each score on short-term prognosis (30-day post-discharge mortality) was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve and area under curve (AUC). Results There were significant differences in APACHEⅡ score, SAVE score and modified SAVE score between two groups (P<0.05). The AUC and its 95%CI of APACHEⅡ score was 0.696 (95%CI 0.592 - 0.801), of SAVE score was 0.617 (95%CI 0.498 - 0.736), and of post SAVE score was 0.664 (95%CI 0.545 - 0.782), respectively. All AUCs were relatively low (<0.75). Conclusion SOFA, APACHEⅡ, SAVE score and modified SAVE score have limited clinical value in the prognosis assessment of ECMO patients, and do not show obvious advantages.