Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Call for Abstracts
    • 2022 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
EditorialEditorials

Is Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Saving Lives, or Are We Just Using It in Healthier Patients?

Kyle J Rehder and David A Turner
Respiratory Care October 2016, 61 (10) 1425-1427; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.05148
Kyle J Rehder
Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Department of Pediatrics Duke Children's Hospital Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
David A Turner
Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine Department of Pediatrics Duke Children's Hospital Durham, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In this issue of Respiratory Care, Natt et al1 present a retrospective review of a large administrative database, looking at trends in use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in adults with ARDS. As the authors note, ECMO utilization for adult ARDS has undoubtedly increased, and that trend is continuing. Adult respiratory ECMO cases reported to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization have continued to increase over the past several years, subsequent to the period reported in the current investigation2 (Fig. 1). In this investigation, Natt et al1 demonstrate a concomitant decrease in both mortality and hospital stay in subjects receiving ECMO during the course of the study period (2008–2012). Although this association is clear and statistically significant, the reasons for improvements in outcome are unclear. These data are consistent with prior studies that demonstrate improved mortality with ECMO in recent years associated with reductions in mechanical complications and improved ECMO strategies.3–5 However, it is possible that the improved mortality that is described in the current era may simply represent a larger number of patients placed on ECMO with lower severity of illness or increasing numbers of patients placed on ECMO for ARDS due to etiologies with high acuity but a well-documented higher likelihood of survival, such as viral pneumonia.5,6 Unfortunately, none of these details are reported in this investigation.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Annual adult respiratory extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cases reported to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry, with the years of the Natt et al study1 highlighted in white.

The trend of decreased hospital stay is similarly difficult to fully assess without additional patient data. The Conventional Ventilatory Support versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Adult Respiratory Failure (CESAR) randomized trial7 suggested that there may be some benefit in long-term morbidity for patients with ARDS treated with ECMO, presumably due to reduced ventilator-induced lung injury allowing faster recovery of lung function and functional status. Some have hypothesized that earlier institution of ECMO, perhaps even to avoid intubation, may have even more profound benefits.8 Although this strategy has been utilized in the pre-lung transplant patient population with benefits in both morbidity and mortality,9–11 such an approach is unproven in the general ARDS population, and it remains unclear how patient selection and severity of illness in recent years have impacted outcomes in patients receiving ECMO.

As with the vast majority of ECMO studies, there are significant limitations to the study by Natt et al.1 Administrative databases such as the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample database may be prone to errors in coding, and these databases rarely contain severity of illness data and therefore lack the ability to control for the many confounding factors that may affect outcome in these complex patients.12,13 These data can provide some guidance, but clinicians continue to be limited to making conclusions regarding the utility of ECMO based on associations from uncontrolled, retrospective data collection.

In lieu of better data to direct ARDS management, providers will continue to struggle with not only patient selection, but also the ideal time to initiate ECMO in a patient with severe ARDS. Despite the clear benefits in some circumstances, it is important to recognize that ECMO is a supportive therapy only, and it does nothing to fix the underlying process. As such, other therapeutic strategies must be optimized to provide the best chance of survival in this most critical population of patients. Despite research into a host of other adjunct therapies for ARDS, the single strategy that has had the greatest impact on mortality remains lung-protective ventilation.14 ECMO arguably represents the extreme example of lung protection, allowing often dramatic reductions in ventilator settings in patients with severe respiratory failure, and using this logic, ECMO should be applied before the onset of irreversible lung injury.

However, ECMO is not a benign therapy, and weighing the inherent risks against the potential benefit in any given patient is challenging. Ventilator-induced lung injury begins within hours of initiation of mechanical ventilation, and although irreversible injury may take days to weeks to develop,5 this timing is probably dependent on any given patient's ventilator settings in conjunction with the underlying disease process, various comorbidities, and individualized inflammatory response. The risk-benefit ratio is further clouded by ongoing improvements in ECMO technology and strategies that reduce the risk of ECMO versus developments in other approaches to ARDS management that may reduce the benefit of ECMO compared with conventional therapy. It remains unclear whether other strategies with promise of therapeutic benefit in severe ARDS, such as prone positioning,15 may provide superior outcomes to ECMO or whether their benefit may be further enhanced if coupled with ECMO. Given all of these unknowns, the need for well-designed randomized trials around ECMO use becomes even more important.

Epidemiologic studies such as this one by Natt et al1 are important contributions to our knowledge and understanding of ECMO trends and the current state of clinical practice, and the authors should be applauded for a timely report during a time of exponential growth of this therapy. However, as was the case with the CESAR trial,7 investigators need to continue to take positive steps toward attempting to address the question of how ECMO compares with optimal conventional therapies. Although a step in the right direction, CESAR has not adequately answered this question, and we look forward to the results of the new randomized trial of ECMO versus conventional therapy to hopefully provide some clarification regarding the utility of ECMO in this challenging population (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01470703.) Clinicians and investigators need to go beyond descriptions of how we use ECMO and push for a thoughtful and more detailed investigation into true optimization of decision-making to guide the when and why of this complex therapy.

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Kyle J Rehder MD, Division of Pediatric Critical Care, DUMC Box 3046, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail: kyle.rehder{at}duke.edu.
  • The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest.

  • See the Original Study on Page 1293

  • Copyright © 2016 by Daedalus Enterprises

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Natt BS,
    2. Desai H,
    3. Singh N,
    4. Poongkunran C,
    5. Parthasarathy S,
    6. Bime C
    . Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for ARDS: National Trends in the United States 2008-2012. Respir Care 2016;61(10):1293–1298.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    ECLS Registry Report. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, Ann Arbor, MI. July 2015.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Rehder KJ,
    2. Turner DA,
    3. Bonadonna D,
    4. Walczak RJ Jr.,
    5. Cheifetz IM
    . State of the art: strategies for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in respiratory failure. Expert Rev Respir Med 2012;6(5):513–521.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    1. Rehder KJ,
    2. Turner DA,
    3. Bonadonna D,
    4. Walczak RJ,
    5. Rudder RJ,
    6. Cheifetz IM
    . Technological advances in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure. Expert Rev Respir Med 2012;6(4):377–384.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Zabrocki LA,
    2. Brogan TV,
    3. Statler KD,
    4. Poss WB,
    5. Rollins MD,
    6. Bratton SL
    . Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for pediatric respiratory failure: survival and predictors of mortality. Crit Care Med 2011;39(2):364–370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Schmidt M,
    2. Bailey M,
    3. Sheldrake J,
    4. Hodgson C,
    5. Aubron C,
    6. Rycus PT,
    7. et al
    . Predicting survival after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory failure: the respiratory extracorporeal membrane oxygenation survival prediction (RESP) score. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014;189(11):1374–1382.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Peek GJ,
    2. Mugford M,
    3. Tiruvoipati R,
    4. Wilson A,
    5. Allen E,
    6. Thalanany MM,
    7. et al
    . Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374(9698):1351–1363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Checkley W
    . Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a first-line treatment strategy for ARDS: is the evidence sufficiently strong? JAMA 2011;306(15):1703–1704.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Bain JC,
    2. Turner DA,
    3. Rehder KJ,
    4. Eisenstein EL,
    5. Davis RD,
    6. Cheifetz IM,
    7. Zaas DW
    . Economic outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with and without ambulation as a bridge to lung transplantation. Respir Care 2016;61(1):1–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.
    1. Fuehner T,
    2. Kuehn C,
    3. Hadem J,
    4. Wiesner O,
    5. Gottlieb J,
    6. Tudorache I,
    7. et al
    . Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in awake patients as bridge to lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012;185(7):763–768.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Rehder KJ,
    2. Turner DA,
    3. Hartwig MG,
    4. Williford WL,
    5. Bonadonna D,
    6. Walczak RJ Jr..,
    7. et al
    . Active rehabilitation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to lung transplantation. Respir Care 2013;58(8):1291–1298.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Rehder KJ,
    2. Turner DA,
    3. Cheifetz IM
    . Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for neonatal and pediatric respiratory failure: an evidence-based review of the past decade (2002-2012). Pediatr Crit Care Med 2013;14(9):851–861.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Tramm R,
    2. Ilic D,
    3. Davies AR,
    4. Pellegrino VA,
    5. Romero L,
    6. Hodgson C
    . Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(1):CD010381.
  14. 14.↵
    The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2000;342(18):1301–1308.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Guérin C,
    2. Reignier J,
    3. Richard JC,
    4. Beuret P,
    5. Gacouin A,
    6. Boulain T,
    7. et al
    . Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2013;368(23):2159–2168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 61 (10)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 61, Issue 10
1 Oct 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author

 

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Saving Lives, or Are We Just Using It in Healthier Patients?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Is Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Saving Lives, or Are We Just Using It in Healthier Patients?
Kyle J Rehder, David A Turner
Respiratory Care Oct 2016, 61 (10) 1425-1427; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05148

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Is Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Saving Lives, or Are We Just Using It in Healthier Patients?
Kyle J Rehder, David A Turner
Respiratory Care Oct 2016, 61 (10) 1425-1427; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.05148
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire