From: ECMO use in COVID-19: lessons from past respiratory virus outbreaks—a narrative review
Study group | Data collection/population | ECMO pts./total H1N1 pts. | Age of ECMO pts. (years) | PaO2/FIO2a (mmHg) | MV durationa (days) | ECMO duration (days) | Discharged aliveb, n (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANZ ECMO Influenza Investigator [40] | Retrospective/15 ICUs | 68/194 | 34.4 (26.6–43.1) | 56 (48–63) | NA | 10 (7–15) | 32 (47.1%) |
UK ERP with SwiFT study [41] | Prospective/4 centres | 75c | 36.5 ± 11.4 | 54.9 ± 14.3 | 4.4 ± 3.7 | NA | 57 (76%) |
Italian ECMO network [42] | Prospective/14 ICUs | 60/153 | 39 (32–46) | 63.3 (56–79) | 2 (1–5) | 10 (7–17) | 41 (68.3%) |
Australian ERP [43] | Retrospective | 38 | NA | 63 | NA | NA | 33 (86.8%) |
Japanese Society [44] | Retrospective/12 ICUs | 14 | 54 | 50 (40–55) | 5 (0.8–8.5) | 8.5 (4.0–10.8) | 5 (35.73%) |
REVA Research Network in France [45] | Prospective/114 ICUs | 123 | 42 ± 13 | 63 ± 21 | 2 (1–5) | 9.8 | 79 (64.2%) |
Germany ARDS network [46] | Retrospective/40 centres | 61/116 | 42 (39–45)d | 87 (74–101)d | NA | NA | 28 (45.9%) |
Italian ECMO network [47] | Prospective/14 centres | 60 | 39.7 ± 12 | NA | NA | NA | 41 (68.3%) |