Background Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va-ECMO) is an advanced life support for critically ill patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. This temporary support bridges time for recovery, permanent assist, or transplantation in patients with high risk of mortality. However, the benefit of this modality is still subject of discussion and despite the continuous development of critical care medicine, severe cardiogenic shock remains associated with high mortality. Therefore, this work aims to analyze the current literature regarding in-hospital mortality and complication rates of va-ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the most recent literature to analyze the outcomes of va-ECMO support. Using the PRISMA guidelines, Medline (PubMed) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were systematically searched up to May 2022. Meta-analytic pooled estimation of publications variables was performed using a weighted random effects model for study size. Results Thirty-two studies comprising 12756 patients were included in the final analysis. Between 1994 and 2019, 62% (pooled estimate, 8493/12756) of patients died in the hospital. More than one-third of patients died during ECMO support. The most frequent complications were renal failure (51%, 693/1351) with the need for renal replacement therapy (44%, 4879/11186) and bleeding (49%, 1971/4523), bearing the potential for permanent injury or death. Univariate meta-regression analyses identified age over 60 years, shorter ECMO duration and presence of infection as variables associated with in-hospital mortality, while the studies reporting a higher incidence of cannulation site bleeding were unexpectedly associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality. Conclusions Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an invasive life support with a high risk of complications. We identified a pooled in-hospital mortality of 62% with patient age, infection and ECMO support duration being associated with a higher mortality. Protocols and techniques must be developed to reduce the rate of adverse events. Finally, randomized trials are necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of va-ECMO in cardiogenic shock.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients present an inflammatory and procoagulant status with a high rate of relevant macro- and microvascular thrombosis. Furthermore, high rates of heparin resistance have been described; yet, individualized anticoagulation by drug monitoring has not been sufficiently researched. We analyzed data from critically ill COVID-19 patients treated at Innsbruck Medical University Hospital with routinely adapted low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) doses according to anti-Xa peak levels, and regularly performed ClotPro analyses (a viscoelastic hemostatic whole blood test). A total of 509 anti-Xa peak measurements in 91 patients were categorized as below (<0.008 IU/mL/mg), within (0.008–0–012 IU/mL/mg) or above (> 0.012 IU/mL/mg) expected ranges with respect to the administered LMWH doses. Besides intergroup comparisons, correlations between anti-Xa levels and ClotPro clotting times (CTs) were performed (226 time points in 84 patients). Anti-Xa peak levels remained below the expected range in the majority of performed measurements (63.7%). Corresponding patients presented with higher C-reactive protein and D-dimer but lower antithrombin levels when compared with patients achieving or exceeding the expected range. Consequently, higher enoxaparin doses were applied in the sub-expected anti-Xa range group. Importantly, 47 (51.6%) patients switched between groups during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Anti-Xa levels correlated weakly with IN test CT and moderately with Russell's viper venom (RVV) test CT. Critically ill COVID-19 patients present with a high rate of LMWH resistance but with a variable LMWH response during their ICU stay. Therefore, LMWH–anti-Xa monitoring seems inevitable to achieve adequate target ranges. Furthermore, we propose the use of ClotPro's RVV test to assess the coagulation status during LMWH administration, as it correlates well with anti-Xa levels but more holistically reflects the coagulation cascade than anti-Xa activity alone.