Awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in immunosuppressed patients with severe respiratory failure—a stretch too far?
Editorial

Awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in immunosuppressed patients with severe respiratory failure—a stretch too far?

Kiran Shekar1,2, Darryl Abrams3,4, Matthieu Schmidt5,6

1Adult Intensive Care Services and Critical Care Research Group, the Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 2University of Queensland and Bond University, Queensland, Australia; 3Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons/New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA; 4Center for Acute Respiratory Failure, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 5Sorbonne Université, INSERM UMRS_1166-iCAN, Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition, Paris, France; 6Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Paris, France

Correspondence to: Kiran Shekar, MD, PhD. Adult Intensive Care services, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland 4032, Australia. Email: kiran.shekar@health.qld.gov.au.

Provenance: This is an invited Editorial article commissioned by the Section Editor Xue-Zhong Xing [National Cancer Center (NCC)/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (CAMS) and Peking Union Medical College (PUMC), Beijing, China].

Comment on: Barbas CS, de Matos GF. Is it worth to apply extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation in the immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome? J Thorac Dis 2019;11:S425-27.


Submitted May 09, 2019. Accepted for publication May 13, 2019.

doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.05.58


The use of rescue extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is increasing with 5% to 31% of patients receiving ECMO (1,2) in recent studies. In the recently published ECMO to Rescue Lung Injury in Severe ARDS (EOLIA) trial, 22% of the recruits were identified as immunosuppressed and the sixty-day mortality of this sub-population was 56% and 78% in the ECMO and the control groups, respectively (3). Even though a post-hoc analysis of this small subgroup may not be definitive evidence for or against ECMO use in this population, it is important to note that “salvage” VV-ECMO (4) in the immunosuppressed is a futile exercise. However, this raises two important questions beyond crude mortality of this population: (I) might this population benefit from early VV-ECMO to liberate them from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) as soon as feasible? and (II) can IMV be avoided altogether in this cohort?

When committing an immunosuppressed patient to ECMO, patient selection and timing of initiation of these supports are the key considerations. A recent retrospective study (5) on ECMO use in immunocompromised ARDS patients provides significant insights in this regard. Six-month overall survival was only 30% in this heterogeneous cohort. Six-month survival rates of 40%, 37%, 26%, 24% and 20% were reported in patients who were immunosuppressed as a result of solid-organ transplant, long-term or high-dose corticosteroids or other immunosuppressant, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, haematological malignancies, and solid tumors, respectively. Survival among patients who received ECMO early after an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant was dismal at 4% (6). Less than 30 days between immunodeficiency diagnosis and ECMO cannulation appears to be a major selection criterion as it was independently associated with better 6-month survival (5). Obviously, other co-morbidities also need to be considered in the decision-making process. However, once the decision has been made to offer intensive care support, including IMV, for ARDS, withholding ECMO or using it as absolute salvage may not be warranted given that well selected immunosuppressed patients appear to have similar results with ECMO as compared IMV (5). Therefore, eligible patients, based on current data, should receive timely lung protective IMV, adjuncts therapies, and early ECMO as needed if they fulfil EOLIA inclusion criteria (3,4).

It is unclear whether early VV-ECMO and liberation form IMV as soon as possible or avoidance of IMV altogether is a better strategy in immunosuppressed patients with severe respiratory failure. Randomised controlled ECMO trials in ARDS have always tested conventional protective IMV with adjuncts against more protective IMV and ECMO (3,7). Whether two modalities of gas exchange support are indeed required to support physiology in an ARDS patient is unclear as both carry risks and the risks may be additive. The immunosuppressed patient with ARDS may have a poor tolerance for the combined risks of IMV and ECMO. Given that IMV carries an increased rate of complications and poor outcomes in immunosuppressed (8,9), one can argue that it better to avoid risks of IMV altogether in this cohort. Extremely high mortality rates (70–80%) have been reported in immunocompromised patients who did not respond to conventional oxygen therapy or to non-invasive ventilation (9-11). So, based on an individual patient situation and logistics, application of VV-ECMO may the best approach when combined with either total avoidance of or early liberation from IMV.

Such an approach will have challenges, most significantly ECMO-related complications such as bleeding and infection (5,6). It is now possible to perform ECMO with minimal to no anticoagulation to minimize bleeding risks (12,13). Future research should investigate supportive therapies that potentially reduce time on ECMO as ECMO duration is intricately linked with risk of infection (14). Equally, meticulous percutaneous cannulation (15) and applying currently known infection prevention strategies (16) may help minimise infection risks. Other potential areas for investigation specific to the ECMO population may include use of antibiotic coated cannula and circuitry, novel cannula dressing and securement techniques (17), selective decontamination of digestive tract (18), rapid diagnostics for early detection of blood-stream infections (19), optimal antimicrobial drug dosing strategies (20,21) to minimise emergence of microbial resistance and biofilm formation (22) on cannula.

Avoiding IMV may help prevent complications such as ventilator-associated pneumonia (23), ventilator induced lung injury (24), diaphragmatic myotrauma and diaphragm atrophy (25,26). This may also help minimise sedation use, promote physical activity, speech and oral intake, and maintain cough and airway function. Patient’s respiratory drive can be managed (27-29) by controlling carbon dioxide and pH through the ECMO circuit and decruitment might be avoided through the application of non-invasive positive airway pressure, as needed. Patient comfort and safety, and the staffing required to achieve a so-called ‘awake ECMO’ strategy are all important considerations. Except for a few case reports (30,31), the risk-benefit ratio of this strategy in the context of ARDS has not been thoroughly investigated.

Initiating and managing VV-ECMO in a non-intubated patient is an evolving art and science as complex lungs-heart-brain-ventilation-ECMO interactions in the ARDS setting are not fully understood. In addition, cannulating a non-intubated patient with severe respiratory failure is not easy and intubation prior to cannulation may be preferred for safer cannulation and improved patient comfort. As the field of extracorporeal respiratory support evolves, there will be an increased interest in embarking on techniques such as extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) or ECMO with the intention of eliminating the risks of IMV. The success of these approaches depends on how well we integrate extracorporeal techniques to an awake, spontaneously breathing patient with severe respiratory failure. This will involve a more in-depth understanding of spontaneous breathing and respiratory drive in setting of diseased lungs, a marked change in ICU sedation and analgesia practices (including the use of non-sedating pharmacological adjuncts to provide anxiolysis, comfort and analgesia), improvement in delirium prevention and management, and improved adherence to other evidence-based practices in ICU.

In addition, if VV-ECMO were to be instituted in lieu of IMV, it would be important to establish that deferred intubation or delayed intubation does not exacerbate patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) (32). Although spontaneous breathing has been shown to improve ventilation in the dorsal, dependent lung segments (33), it could also lead to significant spontaneous breathing-related lung injury (34). Timely application of lung-protective IMV may be considered a prophylactic, rather than supportive, therapy, to minimize the progression of lung injury from a form of P-SILI (32). These are important considerations that require more research to better understand how an awake ECMO strategy may affect patients with ARDS.

Moving forward, if therapeutic and supportive strategies are employed to avoid intubation and IMV in ARDS, we need better definitions for acute respiratory failure and its severity. This is important both to standardise respiratory support strategies that do not rely on invasive access to patients’ airways and to study these approaches in future clinical trials. Clearly, extracorporeal technologies challenge the current paradigm of both diagnosis and treatment of ARDS. Sequential use of ECMO to facilitate protective IMV will be increasingly scrutinised and there will be a desire to attempt extracorporeal respiratory support as first-line therapy (35), with IMV rescuing patients as needed either to support physiologic demands or to promote safety and comfort in select patients. Appropriately selected immunosuppressed patients with severe respiratory failure may stand to benefit from such an approach and may be the population most in need of further study.


Acknowledgments

None.


Footnote

Conflicts of Interest: M Schmidt has received lectures fees from Getinge, Xenios and Dräger. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


References

  1. Schmidt M, Bailey M, Sheldrake J, et al. Predicting survival after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory failure. The Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) score. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014;189:1374-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Schmidt M, Zogheib E, Roze H, et al. The PRESERVE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:1704-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1965-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Abrams D, Ferguson ND, Brochard L, et al. ECMO for ARDS: from salvage to standard of care? Lancet Respir Med 2019;7:108-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Schmidt M, Schellongowski P, Patroniti N, et al. Six-month Outcome of Immunocompromised Severe ARDS Patients Rescued by ECMO. An International Multicenter Retrospective Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018. [Epub ahead of print]. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Wohlfarth P, Beutel G, Lebiedz P, et al. Characteristics and Outcome of Patients After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Treated With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Crit Care Med 2017;45:e500-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009;374:1351-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Azoulay E, Lemiale V, Mokart D, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with malignancies. Intensive Care Med 2014;40:1106-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Molina R, Bernal T, Borges M, et al. Ventilatory support in critically ill hematology patients with respiratory failure. Crit Care 2012;16:R133. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Gristina GR, Antonelli M, Conti G, et al. Noninvasive versus invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure in patients with hematologic malignancies: a 5-year multicenter observational survey. Crit Care Med 2011;39:2232-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Huang HB, Xu B, Liu GY, et al. Use of noninvasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2017;21:4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Krueger K, Schmutz A, Zieger B, et al. Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With Prophylactic Subcutaneous Anticoagulation Only: An Observational Study in More Than 60 Patients. Artif Organs 2017;41:186-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Aubron C, McQuilten Z, Bailey M, et al. Low-Dose Versus Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Pilot Randomized Trial. Crit Care Med 2019;47:e563-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Biffi S, Di Bella S, Scaravilli V, et al. Infections during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis and prevention. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2017;50:9-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Danial P, Hajage D, Nguyen LS, et al. Percutaneous versus surgical femoro-femoral veno-arterial ECMO: a propensity score matched study. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:2153-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Mehta Y, Gupta A, Todi S, et al. Guidelines for prevention of hospital acquired infections. Indian J Crit Care Med 2014;18:149-63. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Bull T, Corley A, Smyth DJ, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation line-associated complications: in vitro testing of cyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and securement devices to prevent infection and dislodgement. Intensive Care Med Exp 2018;6:6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Plantinga NL, Bonten MJ. Selective decontamination and antibiotic resistance in ICUs. Crit Care 2015;19:259. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Edmiston CE, Garcia R, Barnden M, et al. Rapid diagnostics for bloodstream infections: A primer for infection preventionists. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:1060-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Shekar K, Fraser JF, Roberts JA. Can optimal drug dosing during ECMO improve outcomes? Intensive Care Med 2013;39:2237. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Shekar K, Roberts JA, Smith MT, et al. The ECMO PK Project: an incremental research approach to advance understanding of the pharmacokinetic alterations and improve patient outcomes during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. BMC Anesthesiol 2013;13:7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Yeo HJ, Yoon SH, Lee SE, et al. Bacterial Biofilms on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Catheters. ASAIO J 2018;64:e48-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Kalanuria AA, Ziai W, Mirski M. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in the ICU. Crit Care 2014;18:208. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2126-36. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Goligher EC, Brochard LJ, Reid WD, et al. Diaphragmatic myotrauma: a mediator of prolonged ventilation and poor patient outcomes in acute respiratory failure. Lancet Respir Med 2019;7:90-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Goligher EC, Dres M, Fan E, et al. Mechanical Ventilation-induced Diaphragm Atrophy Strongly Impacts Clinical Outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018;197:204-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Zhang Z, Gu WJ, Chen K, et al. Mechanical Ventilation during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Acute Severe Respiratory Failure. Can Respir J 2017;2017:1783857. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Crotti S, Bottino N, Spinelli E. Spontaneous breathing during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Thorac Dis 2018;10:S661-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Langer T, Santini A, Bottino N, et al. "Awake" extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO): pathophysiology, technical considerations, and clinical pioneering. Crit Care 2016;20:150. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Yeo HJ, Cho WH, Kim D. Awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with severe postoperative acute respiratory distress syndrome. J Thorac Dis 2016;8:37-42. [PubMed]
  31. Hoeper MM, Wiesner O, Hadem J, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation instead of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med 2013;39:2056-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  32. Brochard L, Slutsky A, Pesenti A. Mechanical Ventilation to Minimize Progression of Lung Injury in Acute Respiratory Failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017;195:438-42. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  33. Neumann P, Wrigge H, Zinserling J, et al. Spontaneous breathing affects the spatial ventilation and perfusion distribution during mechanical ventilatory support. Crit Care Med 2005;33:1090-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. Yoshida T, Torsani V, Gomes S, et al. Spontaneous effort causes occult pendelluft during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188:1420-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  35. Abrams D, Brodie D. Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Is First-Line Therapy for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Crit Care Med 2017;45:2070-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
Cite this article as: Shekar K, Abrams D, Schmidt M. Awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in immunosuppressed patients with severe respiratory failure—a stretch too far? J Thorac Dis 2019;11(7):2656-2659. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.05.58