Next Article in Journal
Effect of the Characteristic Properties of Membrane on Long-Term Stability in the Vacuum Membrane Distillation Process
Next Article in Special Issue
A Dedicated Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Unit during a Respiratory Pandemic: Lessons Learned from COVID-19 Part I: System Planning and Care Teams
Previous Article in Journal
Nanofiber-Based Face Masks and Respirators as COVID-19 Protection: A Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
ECMO Retrieval over the Mediterranean Sea: Extending Hospital Arms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Membranes
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/membranes11040251
membranes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Systematic Literature Review of Packed Red Cell Transfusion Usage in Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

by
Thomas Hughes
1,
David Zhang
2,
Priya Nair
1,2 and
Hergen Buscher
1,2,*
1
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney 2010, Australia
2
Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Membranes 2021, 11(4), 251; https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes11040251
Submission received: 26 February 2021 / Revised: 19 March 2021 / Accepted: 22 March 2021 / Published: 30 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges in the Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Era)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Blood product administration plays a major role in the management of patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and may be a contributor to morbidity and mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the published literature to determine the current usage of packed red cell transfusions. Predefined search criteria were used to identify journal articles reporting transfusion practice in ECMO by interrogating EMBASE and Medline databases and following the PRISMA statement. Results: Out of 1579 abstracts screened, articles reporting ECMO usage in a minimum of 10 adult patients were included. Full texts of 331 articles were obtained, and 54 were included in the final analysis. All studies were observational (2 were designed prospectively, and two were multicentre). A total of 3808 patients were reported (range 10–517). Mean exposure to ECMO was 8.2 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.0–9.4). A median of 5.6% was not transfused (interquartile range (IQR) 0–11.3%, 19 studies). The mean red cell transfusion per ECMO run was 17.7 units (CI 14.2–21.2, from 52 studies) or 2.60 units per day (CI 1.93–3.27, from 49 studies). The median survival to discharge was 50.8% (IQR 40.0–64.9%). Conclusion: Current evidence on transfusion practice in ECMO is mainly drawn from single-centre observational trials and varies widely. The need for transfusions is highly variable. Confounding factors influencing transfusion practice need to be identified in prospective multicentre studies to mitigate potential harmful effects and generate hypotheses for interventional trials.

1. Introduction

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rapidly evolving area of intensive care practice, with the potential to rescue patients with severe cardiac or respiratory failure who would almost certainly have died in earlier eras. However, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence to guide this invasive and resource-intensive therapy, and as such, much practice for avoiding ECMO-induced harm is guided by consensus, first principles and local policy.
The extracorporeal circuit exposes the entire blood volume to a large surface area of artificial material as well as significant shear forces, with resultant red cell damage and deranged activation of the coagulation pathways. Depending on the cannulation strategy, the site of vascular access may also be a point of significant blood loss. Therefore, hemorrhage, hemolysis and decreased red cell lifespan are ubiquitous in patients receiving ECMO. Further, thrombocytopenia and coagulopathies are common findings, either due to anticoagulant therapy, the underlying condition, or the circuit itself. Thus, patients receiving ECMO have a substantial transfusion requirement, with the attendant comorbidity and drain on blood bank resources. Management of anticoagulation during ECMO is an area of intense research, with recent systematic reviews [1,2] attempting to address the varying patterns of management. However, to date, transfusion practice has not been given the same attention.
Within broader intensive care practice, transfusion strategy has been guided by seminal trials such as TRIC [3] and the ensuing meta-analyses [4], whereby red cell transfusion triggers of 7 g/dL are now commonplace for most patient groups, with separate consideration given to patients with active bleeding or high risk of ischemia, such as due to flow-limiting atherosclerotic lesions. It is not well established where optimal transfusion management of the highly heterogeneous ECMO population sits within the similarly heterogeneous ICU population; however, it is believed that ECMO patients have an increased risk of bleeding and exposure to blood products, but this has not been quantified.
The goal of this review is to better characterise historical and recent red cell transfusion practice within adult ECMO patients.

2. Materials and Methods

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [5].

2.1. Search Strategy

We searched multiple electronic databases (Medline and EMBASE) to identify all potentially relevant publications in English reporting transfusion burden in ECMO patients between 1996 and 2016. The search strategies are specified in Table S1.

2.2. Study Inclusion and Exclusion

Studies were included if they reported on 10 or more patients aged 18 years or older, where ECMO was used for support in the ICU. For mixed studies, 20% or fewer patients aged under 18 was considered acceptable. ECMO used solely as a substitute for traditional cardiopulmonary bypass in the operating theatre was not accepted. Concurrent use of an intra-aortic balloon pump was acceptable. Studies reporting on other mechanical cardiovascular support modalities, such as a ventricular assist device concurrently with ECMO, were only included when a discrete ECMO-only group, meeting all other criteria, was present. Articles were excluded if the quantity of red cell transfusions was not reported. As a minimum, studies needed to state red cell transfusion amounts per ECMO run, per day or for the whole cohort. For consistency, product usage was required to be by component (e.g., red cells) rather than aggregated, and, similarly, data reported as mL/kg were excluded. Studies reporting outcomes related to a single event in the ECMO run (e.g., decannulation), or a limited time frame rather than the full ECMO run, were not included. Finally, when otherwise valid but chronologically overlapping cohorts from the same institution were encountered, only the largest cohort was included.

2.3. Data Extraction, Quality Assessment and Analysis

One author (TH) performed a full-text review and data extraction, with oversight from a senior colleague (HB). The primary outcome recorded was daily or total transfusion usage per patient. Secondary outcomes of interest were transfusion practice by ECMO modality, indication, duration, and survival status. Where available, cannulation strategy, membrane type, anticoagulation target (either activated clotting time (ACT) or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)); prespecified transfusion triggers and the fraction of patients not transfused were also recorded. This information was tabulated and processed with Microsoft Excel. Quality assessment of the selected full-text papers was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale [6].
To facilitate comparison, transfusion volumes were converted to units of red cells (300 mL). Mean values for a variable were estimated, where necessary, using median-to-mean formulae outlined by Wan [7] for sets with a range or interquartile value. Meta-analysis and forest plot generation were then performed using R with the meta package [8], with the random effect size assumption after assessment of heterogeneity through I2. Values without standard deviation data were reported as median/interquartile range.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results and Characteristics of Included Studies

The original search identified 1577 citations, and two further citations were added during the review of references from a full-text assessment. Exclusion was recorded based on a single criterion, although studies were frequently rejected on several grounds. The most common exclusions were pediatric focus (510), fewer than 10 patients reported (330) and ECMO use (or lack thereof) not meeting the criteria in the methods section above (185). The remaining exclusions were for absent abstracts, duplicate citations, review articles and nonhuman/ex-vivo reports.
Full-text assessment was performed on the remaining 331 publications. The most frequent reason for exclusion was inadequate or missing data for RBC transfusion (182 studies). Other exclusions are detailed in the consort diagram (Figure 1). A further 28 studies were not able to be included due to the inclusion of a study from the same institution in an overlapping recruitment period and with a larger cohort. All included studies are summarised in Table 1 (54 studies).

3.2. Methodological Quality

Two studies were designed prospectively, with the remainder reporting retrospective reviews of institutional databases. One study reported on 15 centres [53], another included three hospitals [30], and all others were single-centre. All papers were scored on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale as cohort studies, with a maximum possible score of 9. The median score was 7 (IQR 6–7; Table S2).

3.3. Patient and ECMO Characteristics

Fifty-four studies reported a transfusion dose during ECMO, with a total of 3808 patients. Four studies each had patients under 18 years [39,53,55,61] (3 of 15, 3 of 68, 3 of 38 and 1 of 23 patients, respectively), whilst the remainder were entirely adult cohorts. Other characteristics are described in Table 1.
Exclusively postcardiotomy cohorts were represented in 8 studies (1078 patients), with one paper reporting on patients requiring ECMO for primary cardiac graft dysfunction [50] and the remainder reporting outcomes after a variety of cardiac surgical procedures. Twenty-seven studies (1349 patients) covered exclusively nonsurgical patients, predominantly patients receiving venovenous (VV) ECMO due to ARDS and other severe acute respiratory failure, although 6 of these 27 were venoarterial (VA) cohorts related to postinfarction cardiogenic shock or ECMO-facilitated CPR.
Survival to hospital discharge was available in 41 studies (2984 patients), with a median of 50.8% (IQR 40.0–64.9%). Survival of ECMO alone was reported in 28 studies (1635 patients), with a median of 65.2% (CI 56.1–69.6%).
Peripheral cannulation was the dominant strategy, present in 2756 of 3375 (81.6%) patients with available data. This was broadly distributed, with 28 studies reporting rates of 100% and a further 7 studies reporting rates above 80%. The remaining 11 studies, where data were provided, had peripheral cannulation rates between 39–80%, whilst 9 studies did not report their cannulation strategy.
Centrifugal pumps were most common (40 studies). The remainder were accounted for by roller pumps (n = 5), a mixture (n = 2), other pump designs (n = 1) or not specified (n = 6).
Where reported, most membranes used were poly-methyl pentene (PMP; n = 33). Polypropylene (n = 5), silicon (n = 3) and combinations of membrane types (n = 3) were the rest (not specified in 9 studies). No cohort commencing after 2006 reported a membrane-type other than PMP.
Thresholds for the administration of blood products were given in less than half of the included studies. Nineteen studies specified a hemoglobin concentration (median 8 g/dL, range 7–15, IQR 8–10), whilst 10 specified a hematocrit threshold (median 28%, range 24–35, IQR 28–30). To facilitate comparison, hematocrit targets were converted to hemoglobin concentration by dividing by three.
Platelet targets were provided in 22 studies (median transfusion trigger 50,000/µL, range 20,000–100,000, IQR 50,000–75,000). Only 5 studies mentioned targets for fibrinogen concentration (range 1–3 g/L), and 2 reported an INR threshold.
Nineteen studies reported whether transfusion was universal in their cohort, with a median of 5.6% (IQR 0–11.3%) not receiving red cell support during ECMO. This was broadly distributed, with 5 studies reporting a universal need for transfusion, whilst other studies reported rates as high as 60% [44] and 67% [17] of freedom from red cell transfusion.

3.4. Reported Complications

Hemorrhage as the direct cause of death had a median incidence of 2% (IQR 0–6%, 16 studies with 890 patients). Intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 4% (IQR 2–7%, 25 studies with 2207 patients). Procedural intervention for bleeding was reported in 16 studies (1308 patients) with a median frequency of 35% (IQR 11–46%). Major bleeding, as per the heterogeneous definitions thereof in the 16 studies (651 patients) reporting it, occurred in a median of 30% of ECMO patients (IQR 18–45%).
Ischemic stroke was reported in 20 papers (1810 patients), with a median incidence of 5% (IQR 2–10%); 4 of these publications reported no patients with strokes. Limb ischemia and DVT were frequently reported together; the aggregated outcome was noted in a median of 12% of patients (IQR 6–20%, 28 studies with 2067 patients). Intracardiac clot incidence was reported in only 3 papers (76 patients) with rates of 4, 5 and 15 percent. Circuit failure (or requirement for circuit change as a surrogate for impending failure) occurred in a median of 9% of patients (IQR 5–15%) in the 20 studies (1642 patients).
Renal failure requiring dialysis support frequently occurred (median 49% [IQR 38–58%]; 28 studies, 2197 patients).

3.5. Transfusion Rates

The meta-analysed transfusion data is presented in Table 2 and Table 3, and Figure 2 and Figure 3.
VV patients received significantly fewer transfusions per ECMO day (1.23 units (0.89–1.57) versus 3.86 (2.51–5.22), p < 0.001) but not per ECMO run (19.3 (10.4–28.1) versus 18.3 (14.2–22.4)) when compared to patients treated with VA ECMO. Studies with postcardiotomy patients (5.56 (2.20–8.93) versus 1.93 (1.26–2.59), p = 0.04) and with a >10% rate of central cannulation (4.53 (2.31–6.76) versus 1.74 (1.24–2.25), p = 0.02) had twice as many transfusions per ECMO day compared to other studies. Studies reporting an above-median survival rate also reported significantly less need for PRBC transfusions (1.65 (1.08–2.23) versus 3.82 (2.23–5.42), p = 0.001). If a below-median transfusion trigger was used, the associated number of PRBC transfusions was significantly less (1.41 (0.86–1.97) versus 2.39 (1.67–3.10), p = 0.005). However, no significant association was seen between the upper anticoagulation target (either ACT or APTT groups) and the frequency of transfusions. A major bleeding event rate above the median was also not associated with more PRBC transfusions.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to provide a synopsis of red cell transfusion practice in published ECMO literature. Transfusion practices and thresholds vary widely by patient indication, institution, and country, in part due to the dearth of quality trial data to date. Similarly, practices have varied significantly over time-early editions of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization’s guidelines (the “Red Book”) [63], which called for hemoglobin targets of 15 g/dL, whilst most studies in our review that commenced after 2006 transfused for hemoglobin levels less than 8–10 g/dL.
In the 51 studies included in our pooled effect calculation, patients received a mean of 2.60 units of PRBCs per day of ECMO support. However, the distribution of values from our studies was wide, ranging from 0.15–17.8 units per patient per day, an unsurprising finding given the diverse range of patient cohorts sampled. The subgroup comparisons performed begin to suggest some of the drivers for this heterogeneity, with our findings in keeping with other published data from smaller data sets and meta-analyses addressing complications in specific subgroups.
VA ECMO predicted higher transfusion rates in several single-centre studies where a comparison was made with VV [10,14,64], and our study suggested an approximately three-fold increase in red cell use for VA patients. A 2019 meta-analysis [65] suggested central cannulation was associated with higher rates of in-hospital death, reoperation for bleeding complications and transfusion, in keeping with the association seen in our analysis, where groups with exclusive or very high rates of peripheral cannulation had a significantly lower transfusion burden. Postcardiotomy ECMO use also appears to be associated with greater frequency of transfusion; however, this is an almost-exclusively VA ECMO cohort, with higher rates of central cannulation than most other ECMO indications, as well as an expected higher frequency of bleeding events and coagulation disturbances due to the nature of the operations and of exposure to intraoperative cardiopulmonary bypass. As such, there is a significant confounding effect present that our study is not powered to disentangle.
Several studies included in this review have drawn associations between increased transfusions and poorer survival in ECMO patients [14,64,66,67] as well as in other ICU populations such as post cardiac surgery [68], while our work suggests higher transfusion rates in cohorts with below-median survival. The direction and strength of this association are uncertain, as the transfusion of any allogeneic blood product comes with well-recognised immunologic and nonimmunologic risks. Conversely, the requirement for blood transfusion may be a signal of underlying adverse events (especially hemorrhage or hemolysis) that are themselves more directly likely to lead to death.
The use of PMP membranes versus earlier membrane technology (based on silicon or polypropylene) appeared to show a lower transfusion rate, but this finding fell short of statistical significance. This is out of keeping with published experience, starting with early cohorts of patients managed with PMP membranes [69]. The difference reported in other series has been attributed to decreased membrane surface area leading to lower rates of contact activation of clotting processes, a lower priming volume and heparin-coated surfaces. All included studies commencing after 2006 used PMP membranes exclusively. Other changes in ECMO equipment over our study period include a shift toward centrifugal pumps and heparin-bonded circuits, which are thought to decrease red-cell trauma [23] and coagulation activation, which may all have contributed to this finding.
Adoption of a lower transfusion threshold was associated with a lower red cell transfusion rate. One single-centre trial found the implementation of a more restrictive transfusion protocol for postcardiotomy VA ECMO patients led to a drop of 45% in red cell units transfused per ECMO run [70].
Significant heterogeneity in transfusion targets was seen, which is not unexpected; one published international survey [71] of critical care clinicians found the greatest variation in transfusion thresholds was for ECMO patients. Centres with higher ECMO volumes have reported lower thresholds for transfusions from clinician surveys [72]. In our review, most studies commenced after 2009 had a threshold of 10 g/dL or lower. This evolution is likely to be driven by a variety of factors, including greater familiarity with ECMO management as well as the growth of critical care literature finding noninferiority of lower transfusion thresholds in other patient groups, such as patients with sepsis [73], GI bleeding [74] and after cardiac surgery [75]. These trials have been influential on a more restrictive transfusion practice being adopted in the broader ICU population, and it is not unreasonable to think this change has leached into ECMO management as well.
One area where our study showed weaker associations was anticoagulation targets and bleeding complications, with neither variable showing a robust association with transfusion rates. This finding may be driven by the smaller number of studies included. For anticoagulation, the spread of anticoagulation targets was relatively narrow and across two noncomparable modalities (ACT and aPTT), which may limit the ability to distinguish a real finding. Further, anticoagulation targets are only a surrogate for the achieved degree of anticoagulation (which would be expected to be a better predictor of bleeding events and, thus, transfusion) and do not reliably account for other commonly found derangements of coagulation function in ECMO patients. Several single-centre reports [13,76,77,78] suggest that lower anticoagulation targets or anticoagulation-free ECMO is feasible and is associated with lower rates of bleeding and transfusion. For bleeding, the lower number of included patients, as well as the lack of a standardised definition of bleeding, likely confounded the result, as, from first principles, a higher rate of major bleeding would be expected to predict a greater need for transfusion. This could be further explored by using standardised criteria such as those proposed by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [79].

4.1. Data Quality

All included publications were observational cohort studies—some included a case-control design, but the data of interest were best described as a cohort in how it was extracted and incorporated into the analysis. Overall, the quality of papers was relatively consistent—most were retrospective cohorts where the outcomes of interest were readily demonstrated (ECMO exposure and transfusion outcomes), and, furthermore, papers that were inadequate in these areas generally did not meet all inclusion criteria; more variability was seen in follow-up arrangements, such as whether survival after ICU or hospital discharge was tracked.
Many studies were excluded for not publishing transfusion data, even in circumstances of discussing bleeding on ECMO or aggregating all product types in their data. Similarly, the heterogeneity of the patient population studied was also broad in terms of indication, with its implication for likely blood product requirements. However, given the role of ECMO as a therapy at the end of a final common pathway of cardiac or respiratory deterioration, this is a strength of our data set.

4.2. Limitations and Sources of Error

The heterogeneity of our data set, as well as the heterogeneity of reporting red cell use and relevant complications such as bleeding, is a distinct limitation for drawing detailed conclusions about cause and effect. It is unknown whether our cohort is representative of the global ECMO population, which has likely evolved and diversified as ECMO has become a more accepted and viable support option. Equally, our results could be skewed by publication bias as it is possible that studies with particularly high or low transfusion rates might choose not to highlight this data. This is partly counteracted by the inclusive nature of the study. The only criteria needed for inclusion was to report a red cell transfusion rate, which is, thus, the most robust quantitative finding of this study, along with the comparison of VA and VV patients.
Conversely, variable reporting or lack of stratification of other outcomes of interest, such as transfusion triggers, and ECMO indications (e.g., many cohorts had a mix of indications) and complications, limited the depth of interpretation behind predictors of red cell use, and the subgroup analyses we have performed are best viewed as associations worthy of further research.

4.3. Implications for Future Research

Future research into ECMO transfusion practice should ideally be prospective and multicentre, with standardisation of reporting blood product usage and outcomes such as hemorrhagic complications. Such studies are currently on the way for VA-ECMO (NCT03714048) and VV-ECMO (NCT03815773). Future interventional studies addressing modifiable factors such as transfusion triggers, equipment, cannulation strategies and anticoagulation would be a significant improvement on the current state of knowledge.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated a substantial transfusion requirement during ECMO and demonstrated significant heterogeneity of transfusion practice. The evidence is largely drawn from single-centre retrospective observational data, which limits interrogation of confounding factors influencing transfusion practice. The impact of mode, indication, equipment, and anticoagulation and transfusion triggers should be further investigated in prospective multicentre studies to better identify potentially harmful aspects of ECMO transfusion practice and generate hypotheses for the evaluation in future interventional trials for this resource-intensive therapy.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/membranes11040251/s1. Table S1: Search strategy. Table S2: Newcastle-Ottawa scores.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, H.B. and P.N.; methodology, T.H.; validation, H.B., T.H. and D.Z.; formal analysis, T.H.; data curation, T.H. and H.B.; writing—original draft preparation, T.H.; writing—review and editing, H.B. and P.N.; visualisation, T.H.; supervision, H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the ongoing help and support of Claire Reynolds and Sally Newman from the St Vincent’s Hospital Intensive Care Research Office.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sy, E.; Sklar, M.C.; Lequier, L.; Fan, E.; Kanji, H.D. Anticoagulation practices and the prevalence of major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Crit. Care 2017, 39, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sklar, M.C.; Sy, E.; Lequier, L.; Fan, E.; Kanji, H.D. Anticoagulation practices during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure. A systematic review. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2016, 13, 2242–2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hebert, P.C.; Wells, G.; Blajchman, M.A.; Marshall, J.; Martin, C.; Pagliarello, G.; Tweeddale, M.; Schweitzer, I.; Yetisir, E. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. transfusion requirements in critical care investigators, canadian critical care trials group. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 340, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Carson, J.L.; Stanworth, S.J.; Roubinian, N.; Fergusson, D.A.; Triulzi, D.; Doree, C.; Hebert, P.C. Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 10, Cd002042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Wells, G.; Shea, B.; O’connell, D.; Peterson, V.; Welch, M.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P.; Zello, G.A.; Robertson, J. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) For Assessing The Quality Of Nonrandomised Studies In Meta-Analyses. Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 26 October 2020).
  7. Wan, X.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Balduzzi, S.; Rucker, G.; Schwarzer, G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evid. Based Ment. Health 2019, 22, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Anselmi, A.; Guinet, P.; Ruggieri, V.G.; Aymami, M.; Lelong, B.; Granry, S.; Malledant, Y.; Tulzo, L.Y.; Gueret, P.; Verhoye, J.P.; et al. Safety of recombinant factor VIIa in patients under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2016, 49, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Buscher, H.; Vukomanovic, A.; Benzimra, M.; Okada, K.; Nair, P. Blood and anticoagulation management in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for surgical and nonsurgical patients: A Single-Center retrospective review. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2016, 31, 869–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Czobor, P.; Venturini, J.M.; Parikh, K.S.; Retzer, E.M.; Friant, J.; Jeevanandam, V.; Russo, M.J.; Uriel, N.; Paul, J.D.; Blair, J.E.; et al. Sequential organ failure assessment score at presentation predicts survival in patients treated with percutaneous veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2016, 28, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hryniewicz, K.; Sandoval, Y.; Samara, M.; Bennett, M.; Cabuay, B.; Chavez, I.J.; Seatter, S.; Eckman, P.; Zimbwa, P.; Dunn, A.; et al. Percutaneous venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock is associated with improved short-and long-term survival. ASAIO J. 2016, 62, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Krueger, K.; Schmutz, A.; Zieger, B.; Kalbhenn, J. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with prophylactic subcutaneous anticoagulation only: An observational study in more than 60 patients. Artif. Organs 2016, 41, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mazzeffi, M.; Greenwood, J.; Tanaka, K.; Menaker, J.; Rector, R.; Herr, D.; Kon, Z.; Lee, J.; Griffith, B.; Rajagopal, K.; et al. Bleeding, transfusion, and mortality on extracorporeal life support: ECLS working group on thrombosis and hemostasis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016, 101, 682–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Opfermann, P.; Bevilacqua, M.; Fellim, A.; Mouhieddine, M.; Bachleda, T.; Pichler, T.; Hiesmayr, M.; Zuckermann, A.; Dworschak, M.; Steinlechner, B. Prognostic impact of persistent thrombocytopenia during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort of patients with left ventricular dysfunction after cardiac surgery. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, e1208–e1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pan, K.C.; McKenzie, D.P.; Pellegrino, V.; Murphy, D.; Butt, W. The meaning of a high plasma free haemoglobin: Retrospective review of the prevalence of haemolysis and circuit thrombosis in an adult ECMO centre over 5 years. Perfusion 2016, 31, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Staudacher, D.L.; Biever, P.M.; Benk, C.; Ahrens, I.; Bode, C.; Wengenmayer, T. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) versus no antiplatelet therapy and incidence of major bleeding in patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Tanaka, D.; Hirose, H.; Cavarocchi, N.; Entwistle, J.W.C. The impact of vascular complications on survival of patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016, 101, 1729–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Tauber, H.; Streif, W.; Fritz, J.; Ott, H.; Weigel, G.; Loacker, L.; Heinz, A.; Velik-Salchner, C. Predicting transfusion requirements during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2016, 30, 692–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Trudzinski, F.C.; Minko, P.; Rapp, D.; Fähndrich, S.; Haake, H.; Haab, M.; Bohle, R.M.; Flaig, M.; Kaestner, F.; Bals, R.; et al. Runtime and aPTT predict venous thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective analysis. Ann. Intensive Care 2016, 6, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Agerstrand, C.L.; Burkart, K.M.; Abrams, D.C.; Bacchetta, M.D.; Brodie, D. Blood conservation in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2015, 99, 590–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Esper, S.A.; Bermudez, C.; Dueweke, E.J.; Kormos, R.; Subramaniam, K.; Mulukutla, S.; Sappington, P.; Waters, J.; Khandhar, S.J. Extracorporeal Membrane oxygenation support in acute coronary syndromes complicated by cardiogenic shock. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015, 86, S45–S50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Halaweish, I.; Cole, A.; Cooley, E.; Lynch, W.R.; Haft, J.W. Roller and centrifugal pumps: A retrospective comparison of bleeding complications in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2015, 61, 496–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marius, H.; Sommer, W.; Tudorache, I.; Avsar, M.; Siemeni, T.; Salman, J.; Puntigam, J.; Optenhoefel, J.; Greer, M.; Welte, T.; et al. Veno-veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure with severe haemodynamic impairment: Technique and early outcomes. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2015, 20, 761–767. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lehle, K.; Philipp, A.; Zeman, F.; Lunz, D.; Lubnow, M.; Wendel, H.-P.; Göbölös, L.; Schmid, C.; Müller, T. Technical-induced hemolysis in patients with respiratory failure supported with veno-venous ECMO—Prevalence and risk factors. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Li, C.-L.; Wang, H.; Jia, M.; Ma, N.; Meng, X.; Hou, X.-T. The early dynamic behavior of lactate is linked to mortality in postcardiotomy patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: A retrospective observational study. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015, 149, 1445–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Mohite, P.N.; Kaul, S.; Sabashnikov, A.; Rashid, N.; Fatullayev, J.; Zych, B.; Popov, A.-F.; Maunz, O.; Patil, N.P.; Garcia-Saez, D.; et al. Extracorporeal life support in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock: Keep them awake. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2015, 20, 755–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Omar, H.R.; Mirsaeidi, M.; Socias, S.; Sprenker, C.; Caldeira, C.; Camporesi, E.M.; Mangar, D. Plasma free hemoglobin is an independent predictor of mortality among patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0124034. [Google Scholar]
  29. Panigada, M.; L’Acqua, C.; Passamonti, S.M.; Mietto, C.; Protti, A.; Riva, R.; Gattinoni, L. Comparison between clinical indicators of transmembrane oxygenator thrombosis and multidetector computed tomographic analysis. J. Crit. Care 2015, 30, 441.e7–441.e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Poss, J.; Kriechbaum, S.; Ewen, S.; Graf, J.; Hager, I.; Hennersdorf, M.; Petros, S.; Link, A.; Bohm, M.; Thiele, H.; et al. First-in-man analysis of the i-cor assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur. Heart J. Acute Cardiovasc. Care 2015, 4, 475–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. San Roman, E.; Venuti, M.S.; Ciarrocchi, N.M.; Fernandez Ceballos, I.; Gogniat, E.; Villarroel, S.; Carini, F.C.; Giannasi, S.E. Implementation and results of a new ECMO program for lung transplantation and acute respiratory distress. Rev. Bras. Ter. Intensiva 2015, 27, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Voelker, M.T.; Busch, T.; Bercker, S.; Fichtner, F.; Kaisers, U.X.; Laudi, S. Restrictive transfusion practice during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Artif. Organs 2015, 39, 374–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wu, S.-C.; Chen, W.T.-L.; Lin, H.-H.; Fu, C.-Y.; Wang, Y.-C.; Lo, H.-C.; Cheng, H.-T.; Tzeng, C.-W. Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe traumatic lung injury with respiratory failure. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2015, 33, 658–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Guirand, D.M.; Okoye, O.T.; Schmidt, B.S.; Mansfield, N.J.; Aden, J.K.; Martin, R.S.; Cestero, R.F.; Hines, M.H.; Pranikoff, T.; Inaba, K.; et al. Venovenous extracorporeal life support improves survival in adult trauma patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014, 76, 1275–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Loforte, A.; Marinelli, G.; Musumeci, F.; Folesani, G.; Pilato, E.; Martin Suarez, S.; Montalto, A.; Lilla Della Monica, P.; Grigioni, F.; Frascaroli, G.; et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in refractory cardiogenic shock: Treatment strategies and analysis of risk factors. Artif. Organs 2014, 38, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. DaRocha, T.; Kosiński, S.; Jarosz, A.; Sobczyk, D.; Gałązkowski, R.; Piątek, J.; Konstany-Kalandyk, J.; Drwiła, R. The chain of survival in hypothermic circulatory arrest: Encouraging preliminary results when using early identification, risk stratification and extracorporeal rewarming. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2016, 24, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Shum, H.-P.; Kwan, A.M.-C.; Chan, K.-C.; Yan, W.-W. The use of regional citrate anticoagulation continuous venovenous hemofiltration in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2014, 60, 413–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fagnoul, D.; Taccone, F.S.; Belhaj, A.; Rondelet, B.; Argacha, J.-F.; Vincent, J.L.; De Backer, D. Extracorporeal life support associated with hypothermia and normoxemia in refractory cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2013, 84, 1519–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Michaels, A.J.; Hill, J.G.; Bliss, D.; Sperley, B.P.; Young, B.P.; Quint, P.; Shanks, T.R.; Dalthorp, J.; Long, W.B.; Morgan, L.J. Pandemic flu and the sudden demand for ECMO resources: A mature trauma program can provide surge capacity in acute critical care crises. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013, 74, 1493–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mikus, E.; Tripodi, A.; Calvi, S.; Del Giglio, M.; Cavallucci, A.; Lamarra, M. CentriMag venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support as treatment for patients with refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. ASAIO J. 2013, 59, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pieri, M.; Turla, O.G.; Calabro, M.G.; Ruggeri, L.; Agracheva, N.; Zangrillo, A.; Pappalardo, F. A new phosphorylcholine-coated polymethylpentene oxygenator for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A preliminary experience. Perfusion 2013, 28, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Repesse, X.; Au, S.M.; Brechot, N.; Trouillet, J.-L.; Leprince, P.; Chastre, J.; Combes, A.; Luyt, C.-E. Recombinant factor VIIa for uncontrollable bleeding in patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Report on 15 cases and literature review. Crit. Care 2013, 17, R55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Loforte, A.; Montalto, A.; Ranocchi, F.; Della Monica, P.L.; Casali, G.; Lappa, A.; Menichetti, A.; Contento, C.; Musumeci, F. Peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system as salvage treatment of patients with refractory cardiogenic shock: Preliminary outcome evaluation. Artif. Organs 2012, 36, E53–E61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Park, M.; Azevedo, L.C.; Mendes, P.V.; Carvalho, C.R.; Amato, M.B.; Schettino, G.P.; Tucci, M.; Maciel, A.T.; Taniguchi, L.U.; Barbosa, E.V.; et al. First-year experience of a Brazilian tertiary medical center in supporting severely ill patients using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Clinics 2012, 67, 1157–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Garcia, J.P.; Kon, Z.N.; Evans, C.; Wu, Z.; Iacono, A.T.; McCormick, B.; Griffith, B.P. Ambulatory veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Innovation and pitfalls. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2011, 142, 755–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Han, S.J.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, K.I.; Whang, S.M.; Hong, K.S.; Lee, W.K.; Lee, S.H. Use of nafamostat mesilate as an anticoagulant during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2011, 26, 945–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lamarche, Y.; Cheung, A.; Ignaszewski, A.; Higgins, J.; Kaan, A.; Griesdale, D.E.; Moss, R. Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2011, 142, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Formica, F.; Avalli, L.; Colagrande, L.; Ferro, O.; Greco, G.; Maggioni, E.; Paolini, G. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to support adult patients with cardiac failure: Predictive factors of 30-day mortality. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2010, 10, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kanji, H.D.; Schulze, C.J.; Oreopoulos, A.; Lehr, E.J.; Wang, W.; MacArthur, R.M. Peripheral versus central cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A comparison of limb ischemia and transfusion requirements. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2010, 58, 459–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marasco, S.F.; Vale, M.; Pellegrino, V.; Preovolos, A.; Leet, A.; Kras, A.; Schulberg, E.; Bergin, P.; Esmore, D.S. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in primary graft failure after heart transplantation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2010, 90, 1541–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rastan, A.J.; Dege, A.; Mohr, M.; Doll, N.; Falk, V.; Walther, T.; Mohr, F.W. Early and late outcomes of 517 consecutive adult patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2010, 139, 302–311.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Ang, A.L.; Teo, D.; Lim, C.H.; Leou, K.K.; Tien, S.L.; Koh, M.B.C. Blood transfusion requirements and independent predictors of increased transfusion requirements among adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - a single centre experience. Vox Sang. 2009, 96, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Davies, A.; Jones, D.; Bailey, M.; Beca, J.; Bellomo, R.; Blackwell, N.; Forrest, P.; Gattas, D.; Granger, E.; Herkes, R.; et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for 2009 influenza A(H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2009, 302, 1888–1895. [Google Scholar]
  54. Müller, T.; Philipp, A.; Luchner, A.; Karagiannidis, C.; Bein, T.; Hilker, M.; Rupprecht, L.; Langgartner, J.; Zimmermann, M.; Arlt, M.; et al. A new miniaturized system for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult respiratory failure. Crit. Care 2009, 13, R205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Bakhtiary, F.; Keller, H.; Dogan, S.; Dzemali, O.; Oezaslan, F.; Meininger, D.; Ackermann, H.; Zwissler, B.; Kleine, P.; Moritz, A. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: Clinical experiences in 45 adult patients. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2008, 135, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Dietl, C.A.; Wernly, J.A.; Pett, S.B.; Yassin, S.F.; Sterling, J.P.; Dragan, R.; Milligan, K.; Crowley, M.R. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support improves survival of patients with severe Hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2008, 135, 579–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Frenckner, B.; Palmér, P.; Lindén, V. Extracorporeal respiratory support and minimally invasive ventilation in severe ARDS. Minerva Anestesiol. 2002, 68, 381–386. [Google Scholar]
  58. Smith, C.; Bellomo, R.; Raman, J.S.; Matalanis, G.; Rosalion, A.; Buckmaster, J.; Hart, G.; Silvester, W.; Gutteridge, G.A.; Smith, B.; et al. An extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-based approach to cardiogenic shock in an older population. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2001, 71, 1421–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lewandowski, K.; Rossaint, R.; Pappert, D.; Gerlach, H.; Slama, K.-J.; Weidemann, H.; Frey, D.J.M.; Hoffmann, O.; Keske, U.; Falke, K.J. High survival rate in 122 ARDS patients managed according to a clinical algorithm including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Intensiv. Care Med. 1997, 23, 819–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Peek, G.J.; Moore, H.M.; Moore, N.; Sosnowski, A.W.; Firmin, R.K. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for adult respiratory failure. Chest 1997, 112, 759–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Butch, S.H.; Knafl, P.; Oberman, H.A.; Bartlett, R.H. Blood utilization in adult patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenated therapy. Transfusion 1996, 36, 61–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Muehrcke, D.D.; McCarthy, P.M.; Stewart, R.W.; Foster, R.C.; Ogella, D.A.; Borsh, J.A.; Cosgrove, D.M., 3rd. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1996, 61, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Winkler, A.; Brogan, T.; Lequier, L.; Lorusso, R. Transfusion management during extracorporeal support. In Extracorporeal Life Support: ELSO Red Book; ELSO—Extracorporeal Life Support Organization: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  64. Guimbretière, G.; Anselmi, A.; Roisne, A.; Lelong, B.; Corbineau, H.; Langanay, T.; Flécher, E.; Verhoye, J.-P. Prognostic impact of blood product transfusion in VA and VV ECMO. Perfusion 2019, 34, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mariscalco, G.; Salsano, A.; Fiore, A.; Dalén, M.; Ruggieri, V.G.; Saeed, D.; Jónsson, K.; Gatti, G.; Zipfel, S.; Dell’Aquila, A.M.; et al. Peripheral versus central extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy shock: Multicenter registry, systematic review, and meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2020, 160, 1207–1216.e44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jäämaa-Holmberg, S.; Salmela, B.; Suojaranta, R.; Jokinen, J.J.; Lemström, K.B.; Lommi, J. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock: Patient survival and health-related quality of life. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2018, 55, 780–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aubron, C.; Depuydt, J.; Belon, F.; Bailey, M.; Schmidt, M.; Sheldrake, J.; Murphy, D.; Scheinkestel, C.; Cooper, D.J.; Capellier, G.; et al. Predictive factors of bleeding events in adults undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann. Intensiv. Care 2016, 6, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Paone, G.; Likosky, D.S.; Brewer, R.; Theurer, P.F.; Bell, G.F.; Cogan, C.M.; Prager, R.L. Transfusion of 1 and 2 units of red blood cells is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2014, 97, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Khoshbin, E.; Roberts, N.; Harvey, C.; Machin, D.; Killer, H.; Peek, G.J.; Sosnowski, A.W.; Firmin, R.K. Poly-Methyl pentene oxygenators have improved gas exchange capability and reduced transfusion requirements in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2005, 51, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Cahill, C.M.; Blumberg, N.; Schmidt, A.E.; Knight, P.A.; Melvin, A.L.; Massey, H.T.; Delehanty, J.M.; Zebrak, S.B.; Refaai, M.A. Implementation of a standardized transfusion protocol for cardiac patients treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is associated with decreased blood component utilization and may improve clinical outcome. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 1262–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. De Bruin, S.; Scheeren, T.W.L.; Bakker, J.; van Bruggen, R.; Vlaar, A.P.J. Transfusion practice in the non-bleeding critically ill: An international online survey-the TRACE survey. Crit. Care 2019, 23, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Martucci, G.; Grasselli, G.; Tanaka, K.; Tuzzolino, F.; Panarello, G.; Schmidt, M.; Bellani, G.; Arcadipane, A. hemoglobin trigger and approach to red blood cell transfusions during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: The international TRAIN-ECMO survey. Perfusion 2019, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Holst, L.B.; Haase, N.; Wetterslev, J.; Wernerman, J.; Guttormsen, A.B.; Karlsson, S.; Johansson, P.I.; Åneman, A.; Vang, M.L.; Winding, R.; et al. Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 1381–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Villanueva, C.; Colomo, A.; Bosch, A.; Concepción, M.; Hernandez-Gea, V.; Aracil, C.; Graupera, I.; Poca, M.; Alvarez-Urturi, C.; Gordillo, J.; et al. Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mazer, C.D.; Whitlock, R.P.; Fergusson, D.A.; Hall, J.; Belley-Cote, E.; Connolly, K.; Khanykin, B.; Gregory, A.J.; De Médicis, É.; McGuinness, S.; et al. Restrictive or liberal red-cell transfusion for cardiac surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 2133–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lamarche, Y.; Chow, B.; Bédard, A.; Johal, N.; Kaan, A.; Humphries, K.H.; Cheung, A. Thromboembolic events in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation without anticoagulation. Innov. Technol. Tech. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Surg. 2010, 5, 424–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Wood, K.L.; Ayers, B.; Gosev, I.; Kumar, N.; Melvin, A.L.; Barrus, B.; Prasad, S. Venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation without routine systemic anticoagulation decreases adverse events. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2020, 109, 1458–1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Carter, K.T.; Kutcher, M.E.; Shake, J.G.; Panos, A.L.; Cochran, R.P.; Creswell, L.L.; Copeland, H. Heparin-sparing anticoagulation strategies are viable options for patients on veno-venous ECMO. J. Surg. Res. 2019, 243, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Mehran, R.; Rao, S.V.; Bhatt, D.L.; Gibson, C.M.; Caixeta, A.; Eikelboom, J.; Kaul, S.; Wiviott, S.D.; Menon, V.; Nikolsky, E.; et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: A consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2011, 123, 2736–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Membranes 11 00251 g001 550
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.
Figure 1. CONSORT diagram.
Membranes 11 00251 g001
Membranes 11 00251 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest Plot-all included studies.
Figure 2. Forest Plot-all included studies.
Membranes 11 00251 g002
Membranes 11 00251 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot comparing VV and VA modality.
Figure 3. Forest plot comparing VV and VA modality.
Membranes 11 00251 g003
Table
Table 1. Summary of included studies.
Table 1. Summary of included studies.
Author/Year (Reference)LocationStudy Period Start and End YearNECMO Type
(VA/VV/Not Spec)		ECMO Days (Mean +/−SD)Transfusion Trigger (g/dL or HCt %)% Not Transfused PRBC on ECMOPRBC/Day (Mean +/−SD)Survival to Discharge (%)Study TypeBrief Description
Anselmi 2016 [9]France2005–20143027/3/08.9 (+/−7.3)24%0.0%2.97 (+/−1.63)50.0%R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock after heart transplant (47%) or cardiotomy (40%) and small number of respiratory failures—cohort report on use of recombinant factor VIIa
Buscher 2016 [10]Australia2009–20104832/16/08.0 (+/−7.0)8 g/dl8.3%1.57 (+/−1.79)69.0%R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock of all causes, including eCPR and severe respiratory failure (mostly ARDS but 3 post-transplant)
Czobor 2016 [11]USA2012–20142525/0/0NR 8.0% 40.0%R. obsNonsurgical—cardiogenic shock and eCPR—cohort report on predictive utility of SOFA score
Hryniewicz 2016 [12]USA2012–20133737/0/04.7 (+/−2.3) 8.1%2.52 (+/−1.61)64.9%R. obsMixed cardiogenic shock post-AMI (18), cardiotomy (5), decompensated failure (6)
Krueger 2016 [13]Germany2011–2015610/61/012.0 (+/−6.5)10 g/dL 1.15 (+/−1.35) R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure, principally ARDS—cohort review for outcomes of anticoagulation with VTE prophylaxis only in VV ECMO patients
Mazzeffi 2016 [14]USA2010–201313268/54/08.0 (+/−6.7) 2.42 (+/−1.97)50.8%R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock, mostly postcardiotomy (38) and ARDS (54)—cohort review for predictors of bleeding events
Opfermann 2016 [15]Austria2001–2014300300/0/06.1 (+/−4.8) 0.74 (+/−0.79)51.7%R. obsSurgical—cardiogenic shock postcardiotomy—cohort review for predictors of survival
Pan 2016 [16]Australia2010–2014184128/56/07.0 (+/−4.9) 1.30 (+/−1.33)73.4%R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock of varying causes, including postcardiotomy, post-transplant and severe respiratory failure of multiple causes—cohort review for predictors of elevated plasma-free Hb
Staudacher 2016 [17]Germany2010–20139090/0/02.2 (+/−2.7)8 g/dL67.8%0.79 (+/−1.51)24.4%R. obsNonsurgical—cardiogenic shock after arrest or AMI—cohort comparison of outcomes of antiplatelet therapy vs. none
Tanaka 2016 [18]USA2010–20148484/0/0 41.7%R. obsMixed—mostly cardiogenic shock, small postcardiotomy group—cohort review of predictors for vascular access complications
Tauber 2016 [19]Austria2010–20123826/12/0 8.5 g/dL0.0%1.65 (+/−1.87) Prosp. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock and severe respiratory failure—cohort review for predictors of higher transfusion requirement
Trudzinski 2016 [20]Germany2010–2015630/63/022.4 (+/−17.4)7 g/dL (or ScvO2<65%) 0.98 (+/−1.17)66.7%R. obsNonsurgical—half ARDS, half chronic lung disease awaiting transplant
Agerstrand 2015 [21]USA2010–2012384/34/09.2 (+/−3.5)7g/dL36.8%0.15 (+/−0.25)73.7%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory +/− cardiac failure due to ARDS of varying aetiologies—cohort report on restrictive approach to transfusions
Esper 2015 [22]USA2007–20131818/0/03.3 (+/−2.2) 5.6%3.47 (+/−2.36)66.7%R. obsNonsurgical—cardiogenic shock after AMI
Halaweish 2015 [23]USA2002–20139518/66/1115.5 (+/−13.4) 0.18 (+/−0.16)63.2%R. obsMixed—mainly respiratory failure (75); also cardiogenic shock (14) and eCPR (6)—cohort comparison of roller and centrifugal pumps, only duration >5days
Ius 2015 [24]Germany2012–20141010/0/010.2 (+/−4.2) 10.0%1.75 (+/−1.78)50.0%R. obsNonsurgical—acute on chronic respiratory failure—cohort of VV ECMO requiring conversion to VV-A
Lehle 2015 [25]Germany2009–20143180/318/0 8 g/dL 0.31 (+/−0.36) R. obsNonsurgical—mixed respiratory failure cohort (pneumonia, trauma, acute on chronic lung disease, pulmonary haemorrhage)—cohort report on predictors of ECMO-associated haemolysis
Li 2015 [26]China2011–2012123123/0/04.3 (+/−3.7)30% 4.49 (+/−2.88)34.1%R. obsSurgical—cardiogenic shock post-cardiotomy
Mohite 2015 [27]UK2010–20145959/0/08.9 (+/−5.1) 2.56 (+/−1.81) R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock (decompensated heart failure, postcardiotomy, post-AMI)—cohort comparison of outcomes between sedated and “awake” ECMO patients
Omar 2015 [28]USA2007–2013154126/28/05.6 (+/−6.6) 5.50 (+/−5.71)33.1%R. obsMixed—mainly cardiogenic shock (cardiomyopathy, eCPR, AMI, postcardiotomy, heart transplant, PE) with smaller group respiratory failure and lung transplant—cohort report on predictors of mortality on ECMO, including plasma-free Hb
Panigada 2015 [29]Italy2011–2013220/22/09.0 (+/−5.5) 0.97 (+/−1.09) Prosp. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure due to ARDS/COPD or bridge to lung transplant—cohort report comparing clinical, lab and CT findings for oxygenator thrombosis
Poss 2015 [30]Germany2012–20131515/0/0 26.7% 66.7%R. obs 3ctrNonsurgical—cardiogenic shock, mostly post-AMI, some myocarditis—cohort comparison of ECMO vs. i-Cor assist device
San Roman 2015 [31]Argentina2011–2014229/13/05.1 (+/−4.3) 0.0%0.89 (+/−1.02)68.2%R. obsMixed—cardiorespiratory failure in pre- and postoperative lung transplant plus group of non-transplant respiratory failure
Voelker 2015 [32]Germany2009–2011180/18/021.7 (+/−30.0)7 g/dL 1.35 (+/−1.16)61.1%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (pneumonia, trauma, other)—cohort report on restrictive transfusion approach
Wu 2015 [33]Taiwan2008–20141910/9/07.0 (+/−4.8) 3.49 (+/−3.62)68.4%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (trauma-associated ARDS)
Guirand 2014 [34]USA2001–2009260/26/09.3 (+/−9.5) 0.90 (+/−0.36)57.7%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (trauma-associated ARDS)
Loforte 2014 [35]Italy2006–2012228228/0/010.8 (+/−9.2)28%0.0%1.29 (+/−1.03)63.2%R. obs 2 ctrMixed—cardiogenic shock, mostly postcardiotomy (118), transplant failure (37), post-AMI (27), decompensated heart failure (40) and myocarditis (6)
Roch 2014 [36]France2009–2013858/77/09.7 (+/−4.5)10 g/dL 0.90 (+/−0.86)43.5%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS)
Shum 2014 [37]Hong Kong2009–20133713/24/05.5 (+/−2.3) 0.0%0.53 (+/−0.72)73.0%R. obsNonsurgical—mostly pneumonia, smaller cohort myocarditis—cohort report on regional citrate anticoagulation for haemodialysis access via ECMO circuit
Fagnoul 2013 [38]Belgium2012–20122424/0/01.6 (+/−2.1)7 g/dL12.5%8.90 (+/−11.25)25.0%Prosp. obsNonsurgical—eCPR
Michaels 2013 [39]USA2009–2010157/8/09.8 (+/−1.0) 3.90 (NR)60.0%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (H1N1 influenza)
Mikus 2013 [40]Italy2007–20111414/0/09.0 (+/−13.8)28%0.0%6.00 (+/−0.84)42.9%R. obsSurgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock—cohort report on CentriMag pump
Pieri 2013 [41]Italy2009–20121613/3/06.0 (+/−4.0)8 g/dL28% 1.58 (+/−1.20) R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock (mixed primary CS or postsurgical) or ARDS—cohort report on use of phosphorylcholine-coated oxygenator
Repesse 2013 [42]France2006–20111511/4/017.3 (+/−8.9)24% 0.96 (+/−0.26) R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock (mixed primary CS or postsurgical) or ARDS—cohort report of use of recombinant factor VIIa for refractory bleeding on ECMO
Loforte 2012 [43]Italy2007–20117373/0/010.9 (+/−7.6)28%0.0%1.23 (+/−1.04)45.2%R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock, mostly postcardiotomy (50/73), 12/73 post-AMI and 8/73 post-heart transplant
Park 2012 [44]BrazilNot reported102/8/09.2 (+/−9.4) 60.0%0.24 (+/−0.39)40.0%R. obsNonsurgical—mixed respiratory failure (mostly pneumonia)—cohort of patients from commencement of ECMO service in this hospital
Garcia 2011 [45]USA2009–2009100/10/020.0 (+/−15.0)35% 2.44 (+/−1.60)60.0%R. obsNonsurgical—mixed respiratory failure (ARDS, advanced chronic respiratory disease pending lung Tx)—cohort report on ambulating VV ECMO patients
Han 2011 [46]South Korea2006–20096859/9/05.3 (+/−6.6)35% 6.03 (+/−6.23) R. obsNonsurgical—cardiogenic shock or respiratory failure (ARDS)—comparison of nafamostat vs. heparin for anticoagulation during ECMO; large cohort of eCPR (41/68)
Lamarche 2011 [47]Canada2000–20093232/0/02.2 (+/−2.0) 9.08 (+/−8.66) R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock, primary or associated with cardiac surgery, some eCPR-comparison of Impella vs. ECMO
Formica 2010 [48]Italy2002–20094242/0/07.9 (+/−5.3)30% 3.10 (+/−3.90)38.1%R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock, primary or associated with cardiac surgery, 2/42 massive PE
Kanji 2010 [49]Canada2002–20065050/0/02.9 (+/−2.6)10 g/dL 12.38 (NR) R. obsMixed—cardiogenic shock, primary or associated with cardiac surgery—comparison of peripheral vs. central cannulation with respect to transfusion and bleeding events
Marasco 2010 [50]Australia2000–20093939/0/06.8 (+/−2.6)8 g/dL 3.15 (+/−1.99) R. obsSurgical—post-heart transplant primary graft failure
Rastan 2010 [51]Germany1996–2008517517/0/03.3 (+/−2.9) 4.12 (+/−3.67)24.8%R. obsSurgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock
Ang 2009 [52]Singapore2003–20064237/5/06.5 (+/−3.2)10 g/dL 2.08 (+/−1.49)26.2%R. obsMixed—pre- and post-cardiac surgery, myocarditis, PE, severe respiratory failure
Davies 2009 [53]Australia2009–2009685/65/010.7 (+/−6.1) 0.68 (+/−0.67) R. obs 15 ctrNonsurgical—H1N1 pneumonia and other viral ARDS
Muller 2009 [54]Germany2006–2008600/60/09.0 (+/−6.1)8 g/dL 1.00 (+/−1.06)45.0%R. obsNonsurgical—mixed severe respiratory failure (pneumonia/trauma/aspiration/sepsis/other)
Bakhtiary 2008 [55]Germany2003–20064545/0/06.4 (+/−4.5) 2.55 (+/−2.03)28.9%R. obsSurgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock—mixed indications (CABG/valves/LVAD, 2/45 post heart transplant)
Dietl 2008 [56]USA1994–20063838/0/05.6 (+/−2.6) 5.05 (+/−2.45)60.5%R. obsNonsurgical—Hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome
Frenckner 2002 [57]Sweden1995–2002380/0/3817.0 (+/−12.9) 2.53 (+/−1.70) R. obsNonsurgical—mixed severe respiratory failure (pneumonia/trauma/PE/aspiration/other)
Smith 2001 [58]Australia1995–19981717/0/04.1 (+/−2.1)10 g/dL 7.21 (+/−3.13)41.2%R. obsSurgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock
Lewandowski 1997 [59]Germany1989–1995490/49/023.1 (+/−19.7)15 g/dL 2.10 (+/−1.90)55.1%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS)
Peek 1997 [60]UK1989–1995502/48/08.6 (+/−7.4)14 g/dL4.0%2.20 (+/−2.00)66.0%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS/pneumonia/asthma)—mixed cohort
Author/year (reference)LocationStudy period start and end yearNECMO type
(VA/VV/not spec)		ECMO days (mean +/−SD)Transfusion trigger (g/dL or HCt %)% not transfused PRBC on ECMOPRBC/day (mean +/−SD)Survival to discharge (%)Study typeBrief description
Butch 1996 [61]USA1988–1994740/0/7410.9 (+/−10.9)14 g/dL1.4%4.60 (+/−3.77)45.9%R. obsNonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS/pneumonia/asthma)—mixed cohort (infection, trauma, post-solid organ transplant)
Muehrcke 1996 [62]USA1992–19942323/0/02.4 (+/−1.5) 17.84 (+/−8.88)31.8%R. obsSurgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock
Abbreviations: ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, VA—venoarterial, VV—venovenous, HCt—hematocrit, PRBC—units of packed red blood cells, AMI—acute myocardial infarction; ARDS—acute respiratory distress syndrome; eCPR—ECMO-facilitated cardiopulmonary resuscitation; LVAD—left ventricular assist device; NR—data not reported; SOFA—Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (score); study types: retrospective (R) or prospective (P) observational.
Table
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of included studies.
Table 2. Baseline characteristics of included studies.
VariableFinding (95% Confidence Range)Number of Papers (Patients) IncludedCochrane’s Q TestI2 Test of Heterogeneityp-Value for Comparison
Baseline Characteristics
Age (years) 48.9 (46.3–51.5)53 (3786)212898%n/a
Gender (% male) 68.4% (IQR 61.1–75.2)50 (3624)n/an/an/a
Modality (patients)Venovenous117754 (3808)n/a
Venoarterial and combined2508
Not specified123
ECMO duration (days)All patients8.2 (7.0–9.4)49 (3328)178197%n/a
Venoarterial patients only5.6 (4.4–6.8)20 (1895)55797%<0.001
Venovenous patients only14.6 (10.6–18.6)9 (309)6387%
Table
Table 3. Results—red cell transfusion rates.
Table 3. Results—red cell transfusion rates.
VariableFinding (95% Confidence Range)Number of Papers (Patients) IncludedCochrane’s Q TestI2 Test of Heterogeneityp-Value for Comparison
ECMO Modality PRBC Units/Run or PRBC Units/Day
Whole ECMO runAll patients17.7 (14.2–21.2)52 (3452)281698%
VA patients only18.3 (14.2–22.4)24 (2043)120798%0.85
VV patients only19.3 (10.4–28.1)9 (309)9590%
Per ECMO dayAll patients2.60 (1.93–3.27)49 (3619)364399%
VA patients only3.86 (2.51–5.22)23 (1933)151999%<0.001
VV patients only1.23 (0.89–1.57)12 (665)29296%
ECMO indicationPRBC units/day
Postcardiotomy5.56 (2.20–8.93)8 (1078)123599%0.04
Nonsurgical1.93 (1.26–2.59)25 (1309)73097%
Peripheral cannulation ratePRBC units/day
Greater than 90% 1.74 (1.24–2.25)29 (2031)122398%0.02
Less than 90% 4.53 (2.31–6.76)13 (1220)79399%
Membrane type PRBC units/day
Polymethylpentene only2.11 (1.49–2.73)32 (2113)164398%0.11
Silicon, polypropylene or mixed4.46 (1.68–7.24)11 (895)57898%
Survival status (median 51.2%)PRBC units/day
Above median1.65 (1.08–2.23)19 (1295)96598%0.001
Below median3.82 (2.23–5.42)19 (1565)141799%
Major bleeding (median 30%)PRBC units/day
Above median1.83 (1.14–2.52)7 (336)13796%0.99
Below median1.84 (0.90–2.78)8 (290)21097%
Upper aPTT target (median 60s)PRBC units/day
Above median2.76 (1.87–3.65)8 (585)11594%0.34
Below median1.98 (0.64–3.32)11 (1164)40998%
Upper ACT target (median 180s)PRBC units/day
Above median2.87 (1.57–4.16)8 (343)60299%0.92
Below and including median2.95 (2.02–3.88)14 (842)30196%
Transfusion trigger (median 9.3 g/dL)PRBC units/day
Above and including median2.39 (1.67–3.10)15 (986)75898%0.005
Below median1.41 (0.86–1.97)13 (797)38897%
PRBC: units of packed red blood cells, VA—venoarterial, VV—venovenous.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hughes, T.; Zhang, D.; Nair, P.; Buscher, H. A Systematic Literature Review of Packed Red Cell Transfusion Usage in Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Membranes 2021, 11, 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes11040251

AMA Style

Hughes T, Zhang D, Nair P, Buscher H. A Systematic Literature Review of Packed Red Cell Transfusion Usage in Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Membranes. 2021; 11(4):251. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes11040251

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hughes, Thomas, David Zhang, Priya Nair, and Hergen Buscher. 2021. "A Systematic Literature Review of Packed Red Cell Transfusion Usage in Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation" Membranes 11, no. 4: 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes11040251

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop