Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Circulatory Support in Adult Patients with Septic Shock: A Systematic Review Cover

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Circulatory Support in Adult Patients with Septic Shock: A Systematic Review

Open Access
|Apr 2024

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow diagram
PRISMA flow diagram

Risk of bias

Authors’ ID & year of publicationStudy DesignA sample representative of the population (Risk of Selection Bias)Evaluation of the outcome (Risk of Performance Bias)Follow-up long enoughFollow up completeConflict of InterestOther Limitations
Park et al., 2014Retrospective review /32 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Not applicable.Not applicable.None.
  • Single-Center Study

  • Small sample size

  • A retrospective review of records

Huang et al., 2013Retrospective cohort study / 52 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Yes.Yes.None.
  • Single-Center Study

  • Low generalizability

Cheng et al., 2013Propensity-matched analysis of ECMO registry /108 matchedNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Yes.Yes.None.
  • Existence of occult confounders Suboptimal selection because of inappropriate comparability

Brechot et al., 2013Retrospective cross-sectional survey/14 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Not applicable.Not applicable.Two of the authors took payments from companies
  • Single-Center Study

  • Small sample size

  • No controlled group was matched

Banjas et al., 2018Retrospective Cohort/131 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Yes.Yes.None.
  • Single-center study

  • Overall, 29% missing data

  • Low generalizability

*Yeo et al., 2017Brief communicationCase series; not representative sample (High)Record review (high)Yes.Yes.None.
  • Single Center case series

  • Small sample size

  • No controlled group

  • A retrospective review of records

Lee et al., 2017Retrospective cohort/24 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Not applicableNot applicableNone.
  • Small sample size

  • • No controlled group was matched

Ro et al., 2018Retrospective review/71 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Not applicableNot applicableNone.
  • Existence of occult confounders

  • A retrospective review of records

Han et al., 2019Retrospective cohort/23 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Not applicableNot applicableNone.
  • Existence of occult confounders

  • Single-Center Study

Vogel et al., 2018Retrospective case series/12 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Yes.Yes.None.
  • Small sample size

  • • No controlled group was matched

Falk et al., 2019Retrospective cohort/37 patientsNot a true representative sample (high)Record review (high)Yes.Yes.None.
  • Small sample size

  • Single-Center study

Characteristics of studies included in the systematic review_

Study No.Study nameStudy typeICU MortalityLength of ICU stayLength of hospital stayImprovement in tissue oxygenationVasopressor requirementSurvival to the ICU / hospital dischargeOther Outcomes
01.Park et al., 2014.32 patients (21 males) with refractory septic shock were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline: Shock-ECMO interval 30.5 hours, CPR duration (median) 23 minutes.CPR strongly predicts in-hospital mortality after ECMO.
  • Median 11.1 days (IQR 4.0–26.0).

  • Survivors had longer stay (32.5 days) than non-survivors (7.6 days) with P=0.02.

Not reportedSurvivors had lower peak lactate levels (4.5 mmol/l) and higher peak troponin I values (32.8 ng/ml) than non-survivors.Not reported7 survived, 19 died from shock/multiorgan failure.
  • Successful weaning: 40.6% in all patients.

  • Stroke: 3.1% in all patients, none in survivors.

02.Huang et al.Retrospective study, 52 patients; inclusion criteria: age >18 years, V-A ECMO, positive culture/serology, exclusion criteria: ECMO primarily for respiratory support.Not reportedMedian 90.1h (IQR 28.3 – 314.7)Median: 114.1 hours (IQ 52.3 – 404.7)Not reportedNot reportedSurvival: 15% survived, 64% died. Age <60 better survival (P=0.029).
  • Duration of ECMO (n=52) 15.0 hours IQ (6.1– 29.3).

  • Bleeding at the cannulation site & GI bleeding= 8

03.Cheng et al. 2013.Propensity-matched ECMO study: 108 septic vs. 108 non-septic patients, age 16+, VA & VV-ECMO, non-first time ECMO excluded.Septic ECMO patients had higher mortality, especially in patients over 55 years old.Not reportedNot reportedNot reportedIABP during ECMO: septic (n=108) 19.0%, non-septic (n=108) 25.3% (P=0.285)
  • Survival to discharge: 28.7% in septic vs 37.0% without sepsis

  • Survived beyond ECMO: 44.4% in septic vs 56.5% in non-septic patients.

CPR during ECMO is more common in non-septic group (n=108). Post ECMO neurologic deficit higher in non-survivors (n=71).
04.Brechot et al. 2013Survey of 14 patients with refractory cardiovascular failure associated with sepsis and other criteria for VA-ECMO use, excluding certain conditions.ICU mortality in 14 patients was 29%, with 4 deaths during ICU stay (2 during ECMO).Shorter in non-survivors (median 10 days) compared to survivors (median 17.5 days).Not reportedICU patients had a peak troponin value post-ECMO of 5.8 ng/ml.Not reported10 (71%) out of 14 patients.ECMO duration: median (range) (n=10) 5.5 (2–12) days in survivors vs (n=4) 3 (1–7) days in non-survivors.
05.Banjas et al., 2018Inclusion: ECMO-treated patients.56% 6-year hospital mortality.Mean: 20 (8–31)Mean hospital stay: 27 (15–40)
  • Baseline lactate levels: 13 (8–26).

  • PaO2/FiO2 ratios: 145 (99–233)

Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
06.Yeo et al., 2017Patients with septic shock and ARDS were included. (n=8)
  • Overall survival rate: 50%

  • Successful weaning rate: 62.5%

Not reportedNot reported
  • Baseline:

  • -Median MAP: 40 mmHg (IQR 33–46)

  • -Median arterial lactate: 7.8 mmol/L (IQR 6.3–16.3)

Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
07.Lee et al. 2018
  • Patients: 24 patients (M:F ratio: 6:2).

  • Inclusion: Patients 18 years or older who received ECMO for sepsis.

6 patients died, only 2 were discharged from the hospital.Median 4 days (1–13)Not reportedImmediately before the start of ECMO, the median serum lactate level, CRP, and total bilirubin were higher in the survivor group.Not reportedSurvival to discharge: 25% (2 out of 8 patients). 3 patients weaned successfully, but 1 died before discharge
  • Survival group: Shock to ECMO duration= 25 hours (7–43)

  • Non-survival group: Shock to ECMO duration= 6 hours (1–75)

08.Ro et al. 2018Adults (>20 y/o) with refractory shocks who received venoarterial ECMO support.In-hospital mortality: 93%. 90-day mortality rates: 87.3%.Not reportedNot reportedNon-survivors had higher arterial lactate, lower platelet count, and higher total bilirubin.Not reportedSeptic shock: 5 patients (7%) survived to discharge11 patients (15.5%) successfully weaned off ECMO in median 7.9 days.
09.Han et al. 2016
  • Inclusion: Patients with persistent circulatory failure or worsened refractory septic shock.

  • Exclude: Patients with advanced malignant tumors, or irreversible neuropathy.

15/23 patients died; 3 died after weaning.ICU stay was shorter for the survival group (median of 12 days) compared to the death group (median of 16.5 days).
  • Survival group: Hospital stay = 19 days (range, 17.5–21).

  • Death group: Hospital stay = 16.5 days (range, 13.0– 21.0)

Mean lactate levels were lower in the survival group (4.4 mmol/L) than in the death group (6.8 mmol/L).Not reported5 discharged alive, 15 unsuccessful weaning, 3 deaths after weaning.Not reported
10.Vogel et al. 2018Retrospective analysis of ECMO database to identify suitable patients, followed by clinical data extraction from electronic medical records.3 patients (25%) died, 2 from multiorgan failure and 1 from cerebral edema with brain herniation.Not reportedNot reported
  • Baseline lactate: mean 5.0 (range 3.85–6.05).

  • PaO2: Mean 9.1 (range 6.4–9.8).

  • pH: mean 7.10 (range 7.08–7.22)

5 patients (41.7%) received vasopressin and 2 patients (16.7%) received adrenaline, dobutamine, or milrinone.9 (75%) survived after VAV ECMO decannulation.No deaths reported during follow-up (median 6 months).
11.Falk et al. 2019Inclusion: ECMO support received by adult patients with septic shock admitted between January 2012 and December 2017 (n=37).8/37 patients died.Not reportedNot reportedVenoarterial patients had a higher Pao2-to-Fio2 ratio, higher lactate levels, and higher ECMO flow than venovenous patients.71.4% (5/7) of patients survived who experienced CPR before admission.ECMO survival: 81.1%. Hospital survival: 78.4%. Long-term follow-up survival: 59.5% (median 46.1 months).Ten (37%) started venovenous ECMO and 27 on venoarterial ECMO. Venovenous-ECMO was associated with higher risk for in-hospital death (50% vs 11%; p=0.011).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2024-0017 | Journal eISSN: 2393-1817 | Journal ISSN: 2393-1809
Language: English
Page range: 119 - 129
Submitted on: Aug 11, 2023
Accepted on: Mar 29, 2024
Published on: Apr 30, 2024
Published by: University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Muhammad Faisal Khan, Mohsin Nazir, Muhammad Khuzzaim Khan, Raj Kumar Rajendram, Faisal Shamim, published by University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Targu Mures
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.