No study has compared patients with COVID-19-related refractory ARDS requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) to a relevant and homogenous control population. We aimed to compare the outcomes, the clinical characteristics, and the adverse effects of COVID-19 patients to a retrospective cohort of influenza patients. This retrospective case-control study was conducted in the ICUs of Lille and Rouen University Hospitals between January 2014 and May 2020. Two independent cohorts of patients with ARDS requiring V-V ECMO infected with either COVID-19 (n = 30) or influenza (n = 22) were compared. A 3-month follow-up was completed for all patients. Median age of COVID-19 and influenza patients was similar (57 vs. 55 years; p = 0.62). The 28-day mortality rate did not significantly differ between COVID-19 (43.3%) and influenza patients (50%, p = 0.63). There was no significant difference considering the cumulative incidence of ECMO weaning, hospital discharge, and 3-month survival. COVID-19 patients had a lower SAPS II score (58 [37–64] vs. 68 [52–83]; p = 0.039), a higher body mass index (33 [29–38] vs . 30 [26–34] kg/m 2 ; p = 0.05), and were cannulated later (median delay between mechanical support and V-V ECMO 6 vs. 3 days, p = 0.004) compared with influenza patients. No difference in overall adverse events was observed between COVID-19 and influenza patients (70% vs. 95.5% respectively; p = 0.23). Despite differences in clinical presentation before V-V ECMO implantation, 28-day and 3-month mortality rate did not differ between COVID-19 and influenza patients. Considering the lack of specific treatment for COVID-19, V-V ECMO should be considered as a relevant rescue organ support.

Case Presentation. This clinical case presents the history of a woman hospitalized for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A 62-year-old woman, with regular physical activity and no history of respiratory disease or smoking, was hospitalized for moderate ARDS with bilateral pneumonitis. Fourteen days later, she was discharged from the intensive care unit and received respiratory physical therapy. One month later, she experienced exertional dyspnea. A regression of alveolar condensation with persistent sequelae at the pulmonary bases was noted. Three months later, the patient continued daily physical activity with satisfactory tolerance. A reduction in alveolar-capillary transfer, inappropriate hyperventilation upon exercise, and impairment of gas exchanges at maximal effort, suggestive of pulmonary shunt, were demonstrated. At the 6-month evaluation, the patient displayed exertional dyspnea with residual bilateral basal consolidations. Six months later, the dyspnea had ceased. The persistence of bilateral basal interstitial syndrome associated with bronchial dilatation and pleural-based consolidations was noted, as well as a stable impaired alveolar-capillary diffusing capacity. Discussion. Upon discharge from intensive care, pulmonary follow-up should be proposed to ARDS survivors. Moreover, pulmonary function testing at rest and exercise is advised as soon as possible to evaluate the respiratory sequelae. This will help to limit the severity of complications through adapted exercise rehabilitation and then regular physical activity.

No abstract

No abstract