Skip to main content
Download PDF

Outcomes of ECMO support with polypropylene membrane during pandemic times: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Pulmonary Medicine volume 24, Article number: 41 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted in shortages of supplies, which limited the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. As a contingency strategy, polypropylene (PP) oxygenation membranes were used. This study describes the clinical outcomes in patients on ECMO with PP compared to poly-methylpentene (PMP) oxygenation membranes.

Methods

Retrospective cohort of patients in ECMO support admitted between 2020 and 2021.

Results

A total of 152 patients with ECMO support were included, 71.05% were men with an average age of 42 (SD 9.91) years. Veno-venous configuration was performed in 75.6% of cases. The PP oxygenation membranes required more changes 22 (63.1%), than the PMP Sorin® 24 (32,8%) and Euroset® 15 (31,9%) (p.0.022). The main indication for membrane change was low oxygen transfer for PP at 56.2%, Sorin® at 50%, and Euroset® at 14.8%. Renal replacement therapy was the most frequent complication with PP membrane in 22 patients (68.7%) Sorin® 25 patients (34.2%), and Euroset® 15 patients (31.9%) (p 0.001) without statistically significant differences in mortality.

Conclusion

PP oxygenation membranes was a useful and feasible strategy. It allowed a greater disponibility of ECMO support for critically ill in a situation of great adversity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Peer Review reports

Background

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) pandemic caused an unprecedented overload on healthcare systems with a shortage of medical resources for patient care [1]. The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support increased exponentially due to the rise in severe cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and refractory hypoxemia [2, 3], in addition to patients with other conditions that required this support [4, 5].

A vital component of the ECMO circuit is the oxygenation membrane that allows the adequate gas exchange [6]. In the 1980s, polymeric materials were developed, including polypropylene (PP) oxygenation membranes, with micropores that allow high gas transfer, low priming volumes, and low resistance. Nowadays, these membranes are limited to cardiac surgery with a recommended usage of no more than eight hours due to the risk of plasma leakage [7]. Currently, polymethylpentene (PMP) is the material of choice for ECMO oxygenators, providing safer support with a non-porous membrane that separates blood from the gas phase, reducing hemolysis and plasma leakage, and with a lower systemic inflammatory response and thrombosis risk, allowing for a longer lifespan [8, 9].

The increase of cases of severe ARDS during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic exceeded the capacity of ECMO centers, with a shortage of supplies, including PMP oxygenation membranes [10]. Therefore, using PP oxygenators was considered a contingency measure for extracorporeal support during the health emergency. This study aims to describe the clinical outcomes in patients with ECMO support that required PP oxygenation membranes compared to PMP membranes during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and cannulated for ECMO support at Fundación Clínica Shaio in Bogotá, Colombia, a reference center for ECMO support and a member of ELSO, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Data were collected retrospectively using the REDCAP® tool with institutional ethical and research committee approval; informed consent for demographic, physiological, and hospital-outcome data analyses was not obtained because this observational study did not modify existing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies [11].

Population and study

Patients over 18 years of age with acute respiratory failure and/or refractory cardiogenic shock requiring veno-venous (VV), veno-arterial (VA), or venoarterial-venous (VAV) ECMO were included, according to the criteria established by ELSO [12]. Due to the shortage of PMP oxygenation membranes and previous experience with satisfactory results in cardiac surgery, the PP oxygenation membranes were used. This decision was discussed and approved by the ECMO medical board and the institutional ethics committee after carefully evaluating the benefits and risks associated with their use [13]. Thus, prioritization was based on ICU occupancy during the pandemic, and allocation of oxygenation membranes was based on availability at the time of cannulation [14]. Available PMP membranes were Sorin® and Euroset®, and PP membranes were Inspire 8F®. Based on anthropometric data and the need for greater contact surface area to achieve oxygenation goals in some patients, depending on availability, a second oxygenation membrane was placed in parallel, either PP or Eurosets® PMP. Patients who died within the first 6 hours, were cannulated outside the study period, previously supported with ECMO, had incomplete data, or unclear complications or cause of death were excluded (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of subject enrollment in the study

Full size image

For patients who required air transport, only PMP membranes were used because there was no information on the behavior of PP membranes at high altitudes. The decision to change oxygenation membranes was based on a decrease in gas transfer according to the manufacturer’s recommendations for each membrane [12], plasma leakage was defined as an increase in polypropylene micropore permeability with evidence of water loss and bubbles through the oxygenator, and hemolysis as the presence of anemia, an increase in indirect bilirubin, and lactate dehydrogenase [12, 15]. Mortality data were extracted from death records and reported in electronic medical records.

Sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, clinical variables at admission, and previous paraclinical findings before ECMO support were studied, and complications during support were summarized. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) [16], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) [17], Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction (RESP) score [18], and Survival after Veno-Arterial ECMO (SAVE) score [19] were calculated according to their original studies within the first 24 hours of admission. The indication for membrane change was evaluated, and finally, outcomes related to complications, days of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, hospital stay, and mortality were analyzed.

Statistical analysis

Frequencies and percentages were presented as qualitative variables, and quantitative variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges if their distribution was normal and as means and standard deviations if their distribution did not meet the parameters of normality evaluated by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Trends over time were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation test for ordinal variables and Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test for dichotomous variables. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. STATA was used for the statistical analysis. (Version 17.0, Stata corp. College Station, Texas, USA) with a license for it.

Results

Of the 152 patients selected for the study, 108 (71%) were male with an average age of 42 (SD 9.91) years, and a body mass index (BMI) of 29.7 (SD 5.15). The relevant pathological history included arterial hypertension (18.4%), diabetes mellitus (14.4%), and smoking (4.6%). At the time of cannulation, the patients had a SOFA Score of 7 points (IQR 5–9), an APACHE II Score of 9 points (IQR 5.5–14), a RESP Score of 3 points [2,3,4] in the case of respiratory ECMO, and a SAVE Score of 0 points (− 3 to 0) in the case of cardiac ECMO. The predominant etiology was SARS-CoV-2 infection in 117 patients (76.9%), which is why VV-ECMO was the most commonly used configuration in 115 patients (75.6%), followed by VA-ECMO in 33 patients (21.7%), VAV configuration was used in 4 cases (2,7%). The use of PMP oxygenation membranes were Sorin® 73 (48%), Euroset® 47 (30.9%), while Inspire® PP-type membranes were 32 (21%). PP oxygenation membranes required 22 (63.1%) changes compared to Sorin® PMP membranes with 24 (32.8%) and Euroset® with 15 (31.9%) (p 0.022) changes, and the main indication for membrane change was low oxygen transfer for PP in 56.2%, Sorin® 50%, and Euroset® 14.8% (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics
Full size table

The main complication was delirium in 39 (53.4%), 28 (59.5%), and 16 (50%) (p 0.676) for patients in the Sorin®, Euroset®, and PP membrane groups, respectively, followed by acute kidney injury requiring replacement therapy (RRT) in the PP group in 22 patients (68.7%), Sorin® 25 patients (34.2%), and Euroset® 15 patients (31.9%) (p 0.001). Major bleeding occurred in patients with Sorin® membranes (10.9%), Euroset® membranes (12.7%), and PP membranes (18.7%) (p 0.551), while oxygenator failure occurred in Sorin® 12.3%, Euroset® 14.8%, and PP 18.7%, mainly due to plasma leakage (p 0.687) (Table 2).

Table 2 Membrane complications
Full size table

The mechanical ventilation days were 16.1 (IQR 11.3–22.6) days for Sorin®, 17.2 (IQR 6–27) for Eurosets®, and 18.8 (IQR 10.5–28.7) with PP (p 0.37). ICU stay was 22 (IQR 8.8–44) days for Sorin®, 25.6 (IQR 14.2–45) for Euroset®, and 22.9 (IQR 15.3–38.5) for Inspire® (p 0.4). Mortality with PP membranes was 16 (50%) patients, Sorin® 22 (30.1%), and Euroset® 20 (42.5%) (p 0.118).

Discusion

Our study describes the outcomes of patients on ECMO support during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with PP and PMP oxygenation membranes. There was a higher number of PP membrane changes due to low oxygen transfer, with an increased need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), without statistically significant differences in ICU stay, hospital stay, days of mechanical ventilation, and mortality.

Patients who received PP oxygenation membranes showed a higher change rate of 63.1% (p 0.022) due to low oxygen transfer of 56.2% (p 0.001). This is attributed to the pore characteristics of PP membranes, which generate a hydrophilic surface that allows greater contact with blood cell phospholipids and leads to plasma leakage, limiting the membrane’s lifespan to a few hours compared to PMP membranes, which are more hydrophobic and have greater durability in ECMO therapy [20, 21]. An ELSO report of 1035 SARS-CoV2 patients supported by ECMO found that only 8% of patients required a membrane change [22]. In a retrospective cohort in Chile of patients with SARS CoV-2 ARDS, an oxygenator failure rate of 23.5% was described [23]. Comparing these results, it was found that the percentage of membrane changes in our study was higher. This could be explained, first by the exclusive use of PMP membranes in these studies, second by the limitation of membrane size at the time of cannulation, as anthropometric data showed a need for greater contact surface area to achieve oxygenation goals, which required the use of a double membrane. Finally, the geographical location of Bogotá, which is at an altitude of 2600 m above sea level, changes oxygen pressures and may be a factor that affects oxygen transfer of oxygenators tested at 1200 m above sea level [24, 25].

Despite the improved survival of patients on ECMO, adverse effects are common, such as acute kidney injury (AKI), infection, thrombosis, and hemorrhage [26]. In our study one of the main complication identified was the need of renal replacement therapy (RRT) which was higher with the PP oxygenation membrane group (68.7%) compared to Sorin® PMP (34.2%) and Eurosets® (31.9%) (p 0.001). As for the factors that were identified with a higher need of renal replacement was acute kidney injury prior to cannulation and the SARS COV 2 infection in 76.9% of the patients, this has been associated with more AKI and need of RRT in prior studies [27]. Overall, available evidence suggests that acute kidney injury is a frequent and significant complication in patients undergoing ECMO support with an incidence ranging from 30 to 60% [28]. Physiological factors associated with this condition can be explained by hypoperfusion, inflammation, and exposure to foreign surfaces such as oxygenators, in addition to preexisting renal injury that worsens this condition [29]. A systematic review by Mitra et.al reports that VA-ECMO requires more renal replacement therapy 72% with a mortality rate of 63% [30]. In a retrospective analysis conducted by Haneya A. and his team with 289 patients who received ECMO therapy for severe acute respiratory failure, 193 patients developed acute kidney injury, the primary outcome of this study was a significantly higher mortality rate (62% vs. 33%) compared to patients who did not develop kidney injury [31]. Additionally, a meta-analysis conducted by Cheng et al. indicates that patients with VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock have acute kidney injury in 55% of cases, with a need for renal replacement therapy in 40% of cases [32]. On the other hand, in patients with VV ECMO for SARS-CoV-2, the need for renal therapy was 46% [33].

Mortality in patients with severe ARDS is high, and the ECMO strategy in appropriately selected patients may lead to a reduction in the 90 day mortality described by Combes et al. [33]. In a meta-analysis of patients on ECMO for SARS-CoV-2, a mortality rate of 37.1% was reported compared to 90% in cases with severe ARDS without access to this support [10, 34]. In reported studies from Germany and Israel, ECMO mortality during the pandemic ranged from 50 to 70%, associated with a lack of resources and little experience in the centers studied [35, 36]. Ling et al. conducted a meta-analysis of 52 studies comprising 18,211 patients to characterize changes in mortality over time with a pooled mortality 48.8%. Of which the factors associated with higher mortality were age, the use of corticosteroids and the prolonged duration of extracorporeal therapy. When evaluating mortality according to the oxygenation membranes used we found an overall mortality rate of 38.1%, with no differences between PP and PMP membranes (p 0.118). The outcomes in terms of days of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital stay were similar. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used extensively for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

We acknowledge several limitations in our study. First, being a retrospective study there is a risk of information bias since it depends on the quality of the records; however, the information program used by the institution has a vast collection of variables concurrently gathered by medical personnel trained by the research group. The selection of the use of PMP vs PP membrane was based upon the availability of the membranes during the pandemic thus there was no randomization and could be a bias when analyzing the outcomes. We used various statistical methods to reduce biases and confounding effects, which prevent causal conclusions. Also, being a single-center study generates heterogeneity in clinical practice patterns; especially, there was no protocolized randomization for the use of membranes this was done based on the availability at the time. We acknowledge that in our observational study there is lack of robust risk adjustment by absence of an adjusted analysis with a propensity score and could increase the confounders. Future research is proposed with propensity analysis to determine these confounding factors.

Conclusion

PP oxygenation membranes are used as a backup option in critical situations, particularly in contingency cases, with similar outcomes to PMP membranes in critically ill patients. Some findings suggest that the use of PP membranes may be associated with a higher incidence of renal injury, although this could have a multifactorial cause and patients may be more severely ill in comparison. Ultimately, the use of PP membranes may be beneficial in ECMO patients without significant complications or mortality.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

(ELSO®):

Extracorporeal Life Support Organization

(ECMO):

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

(ECMO VA):

Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

(ECMO VV):

Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

(ECMO VAV):

Veno- Arterial- Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

(ARDS):

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

(SARS-CoV-2):

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

(PMP):

Polymethylpentene

(PP):

Polypropylene

(ICU):

Intensive Care Unit

(SOFA):

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

(APACHE II):

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II

(SAVE):

Survival after Veno-Arterial ECMO

(RESP):

Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction

(DEOx):

Oxygen debt

(USA):

United States of America

(STATA):

Statistical Analysis of Data

(SD):

Standard Deviations

(Stroke):

Stroke

(COVID-19):

Coronavirus Disease 2019

(BMI):

Body Mass Index

References

  1. Ranney ML, Griffeth V, Jha AK. Critical Supply Shortages The Need for Ventilators and Personal Protective Equipment during the Covid-19 Pandemic. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(18):e41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2006141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ling RR, Ramanathan K, Sim JJL, Wong SN, Chen Y, Amin F, et al. Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04011-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shekar K, Badulak J, Peek G, Boeken U, Dalton HJ, Arora L, Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Coronavirus Disease, et al. Interim guidelines: a consensus document from an International Group of Interdisciplinary Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Providers. ASAIO J. 2019;2020:707–21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pourasghari H, Tavolinejad H, Soleimanpour S, Abdi Z, Arabloo J, Bragazzi NL, et al. Hospitalization, major complications and mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients during the COVID-19 era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. IJC Hear Vasc. 2022;41(March):101058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tsangaris A, Alexy T, Kalra R, Kosmopoulos M, Elliott A, Bartos JA, Yannopoulos D. Overview of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:686558. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.686558.

  6. Ratnaningsih E, Aryanti PT, Himma NF, Wardani AK, Khoiruddin K, Kadja GT, Prasetya N, Wenten IG. Membrane Oxygenator for Extracorporeal Blood Oxygenation. J Eng Technol Sci. 2021;53(5):210502. https://doi.org/10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2021.53.5.2.

  7. Himma NF, Sofiatun A, Nicholaus P, Wenten IG. “Advances in preparation, modification, and application of polypropylene membrane.” J Polymer Eng. 2016;36:329–62.

  8. Jabur GN, Sidhu K, Willcox TW, Mitchell SJ. Clinical evaluation of emboli removal by integrated versus non-integrated arterial filters in new generation oxygenators. Perfusion. 2016;31(5):409–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659115621614. Epub 2015 Dec 6.

  9. Peek GJ, Killer HM, Reeves R, Sosnowski AW, Firmin RK. Early experience with a polymethyl pentene oxygenator for adult extracorporeal life support. ASAIO J. 2002;48(5):480–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gannon WD, Stokes JW, Francois SA, Patel YJ, Pugh ME, Benson C, et al. Association between availability of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and mortality in patients with COVID-19 eligible for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a natural experiment. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022;205(11):1354–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Nathaniel Gonzalez JGC. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inf. 2009;42(2):377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tonna JE, Abrams D, Brodie D, Greenwood JC, Rubio Mateo-Sidron JA, Usman A, Fan E. Management of Adult Patients Supported with Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV ECMO): Guideline from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). ASAIO J. 2021;67(6):601–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000001432. 

  13. Use of LivaNova ECMO / CPB Devices for Respiratory Support during the COVID- 19 / SARS-CoV-2 positive patients FAQs. 2020;

  14. Salazar LA, Uribe JD, Poveda Henao CM, Santacruz CM, Giraldo Bejarano E, Bautista DF, Rey JA, Giraldo-Ramírez ND. Consenso ECMO colombiano para paciente con falla respiratoria grave asociada a COVID-19. Acta Colombiana de Cuidado Intensivo. 2020;21:272–82.

  15. Messai E, Bouguerra A, Guarracino F, Bonacchi M. Low blood arterial oxygenation during Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: proposal for a rational algorithm-based management. J Intensive Care Med. 2016;31(8):553–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vincent JL, de Mendonça A, Cantraine F, Moreno R, Takala J, Suter PM, et al. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Working group on “sepsis-related problems” of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care Med. 1998;26(11):1793–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmidt M, Bailey M, Sheldrake J, Hodgson C, Aubron C, Rycus PT, 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):1374–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Amin F, Lombardi J, Alhussein M, Posada JD, Suszko A, Koo M, et al. Predicting survival after VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: validating the SAVE score. CJC open. 2021;3(1):71–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. He T, He J, Wang Z, Cui Z. Modification strategies to improve the membrane hemocompatibility in extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO). Adv Compos Hybrid Mater. 2021;4(4):847–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42114-021-00244-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Yeager T, Roy S. Evolution of gas permeable membranes for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Artif Organs. 2017;41(8):700–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Barbaro RP, MacLaren G, Boonstra PS, Iwashyna TJ, Slutsky AS, Fan E, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19: an international cohort study of the extracorporeal life support organization registry. Lancet. 2020;396(10257):1071–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Diaz RA, Graf J, Zambrano JM, Ruiz C, Espinoza JA, Bravo SI, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-associated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in Chile: a Nationwide incidence and cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;204(1):34–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lasso Apráez MD, JI. Interpretación de los gases arteriales en Bogotá (2.640 msnm) basada en el nomograma de Siggaard-Andersen. Una propuesta para facilitar y unificar la lectura. Rev Colomb Neumol. 2014;26(1):25–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Burgueño P, González C, Sarralde A, Gordo F. Issues to resolve with the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during interfacility transportation. Med Int. 2019;43(2):90–102.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kim K, Leem AY, Kim SY, Chung KS, Park MS, Kim YS, et al. Complications related to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support as a bridge to lung transplantation and their clinical significance. Hear Lung. 2022;2013(56):148–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2022.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gupta S, Coca SG, Chan L, Melamed ML, Brenner SK, Hayek SS, et al. AKI treated with renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021;32(1):161–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Villa G, Katz N, Ronco C. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and the kidney. CardioRenal Med. 2015;6(1):50–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Thongprayoon C, Cheungpasitporn W, Lertjitbanjong P, Aeddula NR, Bathini T, Watthanasuntorn K, Srivali N, Mao MA, Kashani K. Incidence and Impact of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2019;8(7):981. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8070981.

  30. Mitra S, Ling RR, Tan CS, Shekar K, MacLaren G, Ramanathan K. Concurrent Use of Renal Replacement Therapy during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(2):241. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10020241.

  31. Haneya A, Diez C, Philipp A, Bein T, Mueller T, Schmid C, et al. Impact of acute kidney injury on outcome in patients with severe acute respiratory failure receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(9):1898–906.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lo Coco V, Lorusso R, Raffa GM, Malvindi PG, Pilato M, Martucci G, et al. Clinical complications during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxigenation in post-cardiotomy and non post-cardiotomy shock: still the achille’s heel. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(12):6993–7004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Schmidt M, Hajage D, Lebreton G, Monsel A, Voiriot G, Levy D, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(11):1121–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Ramanathan K, Shekar K, Ling RR, Barbaro RP, Wong SN, Tan CS, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Makhoul M, Keizman E, Carmi U, Galante O, Ilgiyaev E, Matan M, et al. Outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19 patients: a multi-institutional analysis. Vaccines. 2023;11(1):1–11.

  36. Karagiannidis C, Slutsky AS, Bein T, Windisch W, Weber-Carstens S, Brodie D. Complete countrywide mortality in COVID patients receiving ECMO in Germany throughout the first three waves of the pandemic. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03831-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Fundación Clínica Shaio for providing the technological resources available for data collection in a short period of time and the health personnel involved in the care of critically ill patients, as well as the researchers involved in our study.

Funding

Fundación Clínica Shaio, Bogotá DC. Colombia (Code # DIB 21–16).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Critical care resident, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia

    Natalia Valenzuela-Faccini, Catalina Flórez-Navas, Natalia Boada-Becerra & Henry Robayo-Amortegui

  2. Critical Medicine and Intensive Care, Intensive care department Fundación Clínica Shaio, Bogotá DC, Colombia

    Claudia Poveda-Henao, Michel Pérez-Garzón & Mario Mercado-Diaz

  3. ECMO group Fundación Clínica Shaio Perfusionist intensive care department, Fundación Clínica Shaio, Bogotá DC, Colombia

    Claudia Poveda-Henao, Michel Pérez-Garzón, Mario Mercado-Diaz & Patricia Salcedo

Authors
  1. Natalia Valenzuela-Faccini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Poveda-Henao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catalina Flórez-Navas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michel Pérez-Garzón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Natalia Boada-Becerra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mario Mercado-Diaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patricia Salcedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Henry Robayo-Amortegui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Pérez-Garzón Michel had full access to all study data and is responsible for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the statistical analysis. Poveda-Henao Claudia and Pérez-Garzón Michel critically reviewed and revised all versions of the manuscript. Flórez-Navas Catalina, Valenzuela-Faccini Natalia, Boada-Becerra Natalia and Robayo-Amortegui Henry participated in the research question and manuscript writing. Boada-Becerra Natalia, Flórez-Navas Catalina, Valenzuela-Faccini Natalia, and Robayo-Amortegui Henry were responsible for creating the database. Mercado-Diaz Mario, Salcedo Patricia, Poveda-Henao Claudia, Flórez-Navas Catalina, Valenzuela-Faccini Natalia, and Robayo-Amortegui Henry participated in manuscript editing. Pérez-Garzón Michel, Poveda-Henao Claudia, Robayo-Amortegui Henry and Valenzuela-Faccini Natalia participated in the initial version of the statistical analysis. Robayo-Amortegui, Mercado-Diaz Mario, and Valenzuela-Faccini Natalia participated in style correction and translation of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Poveda-Henao.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Fundación Clínica Shaio, Bogotá DC. Colombia (Code # DIB 21–16) and the research committee, carried out according to the modified Helsinki Declaration, waiving informed consent due to the retrospective nature according to local regulations. Following the guidelines of the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)” for observational cohort studies [34].

The primary outcome was to compare the safety variables of the polymethylpentene oxygenator with the polypropylene oxygenator in ECMO therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The secondary outcomes were to establish the association of causes of membrane change and to document complications and mortality presented during ECMO support with Inspire membrane compared to conventional membrane.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of Clínica Shaio.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valenzuela-Faccini, N., Poveda-Henao, C., Flórez-Navas, C. et al. Outcomes of ECMO support with polypropylene membrane during pandemic times: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pulm Med 24, 41 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02753-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-023-02753-5

Keywords

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

ISSN: 1471-2466

Contact us