Background There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO. Results We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3–42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7–40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4–18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5–82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common. Conclusion The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627.

No abstract

Purpose We conducted two World Health Organizationcommissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. Source Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews,

The accuracy of the signs and tests that clinicians use to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and initiate antibiotic treatment has not been well characterized. We sought to characterize and compare the accuracy of physical examination, chest radiography, endotracheal aspirate (ETA), bronchoscopic sampling cultures (protected specimen brush [PSB] and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL]), and CPIS > 6 to diagnose VAP. We searched six databases from inception through September 2019 and selected English-language studies investigating accuracy of any of the above tests for VAP diagnosis. Reference standard was histopathological analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We included 25 studies (1639 patients). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of physical examination findings for VAP were poor: fever (66.4% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.7-85.0], 53.9% [95% CI 34.5-72.2]) and purulent secretions (77.0% [95% CI 64.7-85.9], 39.0% [95% CI 25.8-54.0]). Any infiltrate on chest radiography had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 73.9-95.8) and specificity of 26.1% (95% CI 15.1-41.4). ETA had a sensitivity of 75.7% (95% CI 51.5-90.1) and specificity of 67.9% (95% CI 40.5-86.8). Among bronchoscopic sampling methods, PSB had a sensitivity of 61.4% [95% CI 43.7-76.5] and specificity of 76.5% [95% CI 64.2-85.6]; while BAL had a sensitivity of 71.1% [95% CI 49.9-85.9] and specificity of 79.6% [95% CI 66.2-85.9]. CPIS > 6 had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 50.6-88.5) and specificity of 66.4% (95% CI 43.9-83.3). Classic clinical indicators had poor accuracy for diagnosis of VAP. Reliance upon these indicators in isolation may result in misdiagnosis and potentially unnecessary antimicrobial use.

No abstract