Photo Credit: Pijitra Phomkham

A study comparing ECMO and conventional mechanical ventilation in survivors of ARDS found no significant differences in HRQoL, cognitive function, mental health, or functional status, but indicated lasting disability.

The following is a summary of “Long-term outcomes of patients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” published in the January 2024 issue of Critical Care by Turgeon et al.

Researchers started a retrospective study to delve into the long-term impact of Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on patients conquering severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

They searched electronic databases from the beginning until January 17, 2023. They chose clinical trials and observational studies that discussed the extended outcomes of patients who received ECMO for ARDS. The primary focus was on HRQoL. Additionally, secondary outcomes such as cognitive function, mental health, functional status, respiratory symptoms, and return to work were considered.

The results showed 7,126 screened citations, 1 RCT, and 31 observational studies involving 7 that compared conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) and ECMO. The overall quality of the encompassed studies was restricted, with the majority being either low (45%) or fair (32%). No significant difference emerged in HRQoL measured with the SF-36 score between ECMO and CMV patients (physical component score [PCS]: mean difference 3.91 [-6.22 to 14.05], mental component score [MCS] mean difference 1.33 [-3.93 to 6.60]). Cognitive function, mental health, functional status, and respiratory symptoms showed no variations in ECMO and CMV, and the available data for comparison was limited. After ECMO treatment, 49% of survivors resumed work, but 23% required home assistance, indicating elevated disability rates.

They concluded that ARDS survivors on ECMO faced lasting disability, urging comparison with mechanical ventilation.

Source: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-023-07301-7