Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19

Abstract

Introduction

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents an international public health crisis unprecedented in modern times with death rates in highly impacted countries approaching in excess of 400 deaths per one million persons.¹ Acute respiratory failure is a prominent clinical feature of patients with severe COVID-19, in part due to similarities between viral surface proteins of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and those involved in human pulmonary surfactant synthesis (Fig. 1).² While underlying molecular pathways that mediate the pathophysiology of COVID-19 have yet to be completely defined, it is clear that the disease can affect multiple organ systems resulting in devastating clinical sequelae.

Fig. 1

Chest x-ray of a patient with COVID-19 on ECMO. The lung fields are opacified and ECMO is necessary for life-sustaining gas exchange. COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and persistent hypoxemia despite recruitment maneuvers, escalation of positive end-expiratory pressure, and proning may benefit from veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). ECMO has been used increasingly to support patients with severe ARDS and also has demonstrated utility for treatment of ARDS related to H1N1 influenza.³ Recent data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry demonstrate a 65% survival rate for patients supported with VV ECMO.⁴

First pioneered in the late 1960s, ECMO was initially utilized for treating neonates and infants with cardiopulmonary failure but was successfully translated to adult patients in 1972.^5,6 Since then, a number of improvements in oxygenators, cannulas, pumps, and clinical strategies have contributed to increasingly broadened use of ECMO. A 2009 landmark study of intensive care unit patients with confirmed H1N1-associated ARDS in Australia and New Zealand found ECMO survivorship to be 79% with a median of 25 days of mechanical ventilation.³ This observation contributed to an exponential increase in the use of ECMO for acute respiratory failure, specifically with the use of VV ECMO in the 2013 H7N9 avian influenza A pandemic several years later.⁷ A subsequent outbreak in the next year of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) suggested superior clinical outcomes in patients receiving ECMO compared to those who did not, with 65% mortality compared to 100% mortality for those receiving conventional therapy.^8,9

While the precise role has yet to be defined, VV ECMO is currently being utilized to treat many critically ill patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure. According to the ELSO COVID-19 registry at time of this writing, 1,042 patients confirmed to have COVID-19 have been cannulated for ECMO and 237 out of 445 (53%) whose outcome have been determined have been discharged alive.¹⁰ At our institution we have seen an increase in the use of ECMO in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first 5 months of 2020 we have supported 100 patients on ECMO, 33 of which have been for respiratory disease due to COVID-19.

Cannulation Strategies

Veno-venous ECMO

In patients with predominantly impaired gas exchange as often observed in COVID-19, VV ECMO is appropriate. VV ECMO extracts blood from the venous system, generally via the vena cava or right atrium, performs gas exchange, then returns blood to the venous system while simultaneously allowing mechanical ventilatory pressures to be safely reduced. In turn, this decreases risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) from barotrauma, hyperinflation, and reduces sedation requirements while potentially improving hemodynamics by reduction in intrathoracic pressure. Increased blood oxygen content improves myocardial perfusion, reduces pulmonary vascular resistance, and right ventricular strain, thereby resulting in improved hemodynamics.

Our institution preferentially performs femoral vein–right internal jugular vein cannulation. A percutaneous approach that employs ultrasound guidance is often used at the bedside without need for fluoroscopy. Cannulas are secured at the skin. A 25 French (Fr) femoral venous drainage cannula is commonly employed. Return cannulas ranging from 19 to 23 Fr are employed in the right internal jugular position. The use of large cannulas may facilitate higher flows, thus potentially achieving improved oxygenation, however at an increased rate of intracranial hemorrhage.¹¹ In smaller patients, should partial or total venous obstruction occur from the cannula, extremity edema and venous thrombosis may result. Alternative cannulation strategies may similarly be efficacious, particularly in patients who require mechanical support for the right ventricle. Dual lumen cannulas such as the Protek Duo can provide both VV ECMO and right ventricular mechanical support. These strategies typically require fluoroscopy or transesophageal echocardiographic guidance and may be less desirable in the setting of a viral pandemic. We have not utilized these cannulas and do not recommend their use unless there is a compelling reason.

ELSO has established guidelines for the implementation of prolonged extracorporeal life support for adult patients with respiratory failure.¹² Per their recommendations, optimal ECMO outcomes are obtained when initiated early after respiratory failure according to the criteria listed in Table 1.^13
-15

Veno-arterial ECMO

Veno-arterial (VA) ECMO offers hemodynamic support as well as gas exchange, conferring greatest benefit in patients who develop significant impairment in cardiac output. This has been used only sparingly in COVID-19 but has potential utility for patients with myocardial infarction or myocarditis causing cardiogenic shock.¹⁶ There have been a significant number of ST elevation myocardial infarctions reported in patients with COVID-19 possibly due to the virus’ potential to replicate within cardiomyocytes and pericytes resulting in viral myocarditis, although this is an ongoing area of study.^17,18 To our knowledge, only one case of cardiogenic shock secondary to COVID-19 myocarditis has been successfully managed with VA ECMO.¹⁹

Cannulation can be performed percutaneously at the bedside. Our practice generally utilizes a 25 Fr venous drainage cannula, with arterial cannula sizes ranging from 17 to 21 Fr for adult patients. To avoid leg ischemia, we routinely place a 6 Fr reinforced distal perfusion catheter percutaneously under ultrasound guidance. Of note, if cardiac output is initially robust or improves substantially and pulmonary gas exchange remains poor, ejection of deoxygenated blood from the heart can cause selective upper body hypoxemia (North–South or Harlequin syndrome), which can lead to coronary or cerebral ischemia.²⁰ Development of pulmonary edema or echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular distension should prompt consideration left ventricular venting. A number of strategies, including direct surgical venting, the use of temporary left ventricular assist devices, and atrial septostomy, can be employed to vent the left ventricle.

Hybrid ECMO Strategies

Hybrid strategies may be useful for patients with significant hypoxemia and some degree of cardiac dysfunction resulting in hemodynamic compromise that is not resolved by correcting hypoxemia and hypercarbia. One case report describes a patient rescued from cardiogenic shock following poor response to cannulation for VV ECMO with left femoral 25 Fr drainage and left internal jugular 20 Fr return cannulas. Subsequent addition of a 15 Fr arterial limb to the right femoral artery improved arterial flow and significantly diminished pressor requirements with normalized lactic acid levels.²¹ Such a strategy would be useful for patients initially cannulated for VV ECMO that develop myocarditis or thrombotic complications resulting in coronary ischemia. Conversely, hypoxemia may be alleviated by adding a right internal jugular inflow cannula should hypoxemia develop in a patient initially supported on VA ECMO.

ECMO-Assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Cardiac Arrest

ECMO may be a useful adjunct to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the setting of refractory cardiac arrests.²² Unfortunately, ECMO-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) may not be practical for COVID-19 patients because of the extra time required to don protective equipment for all members of the team and transport equipment into the room.²³ Further, patients with COVID-19 who have refractory cardiac arrest tend to have a grave prognosis and the risk–benefit profile does not favor performing ECPR. Ethical considerations and expectations should be discussed early with patients and their surrogate(s) during the hospital course. Our institution requires patients or family members to discuss expectations for ECMO therapy during the initial few days on ECMO.

Complications of ECMO Therapy

ECMO is associated with serious complications that include bleeding, stroke, ventilator-associated pneumonia, catheter-related blood stream infections, metabolic derangements, limb ischemia, and brain death in cases of severe brain injury.²⁴ Bleeding is the most common severe complication during ECMO occurring in up to 70% of VA ECMO patients.^25
-27 Procedures such as chest tube insertion and nasal gastric tube insertion also lead to much higher complication rates in patients on ECMO for COVID-19 because of increased bleeding risk. Severe inflammation and dysregulation of the coagulation cascade are factors that may lead to increased complication rates for ECMO when used for patients with COVID-19 compared to other disease processes.

Special Considerations

Personal Protective Equipment

Guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) recommend combined droplet and contact precautions for patients with COVID-19. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have suggested that airborne precautions are necessary.²⁸ Because our understanding of the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 is incomplete, there remains controversy about what level of personal protective equipment (PPE) is necessary.²⁹ Regardless, all suspected patients should be treated as positive until tests have confirmed negative viral status. Routine hand hygiene prior to and following contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19-positive patients, materials, or surfaces with either soap and water or alcohol-based disinfectants remains universally endorsed for all levels of patient care.³⁰

As ECMO is often initiated as a bedside sterile procedure, PPE should be collected and then donned in the correct order. Following an initial round of hand hygiene, sterile gown should be donned, then N95 respirator, powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with high-efficiency particulate arrestance filter, sterile gloves, then a second sterile gown and gloving, taking care to overlap with the cuff of the gown at each step. When doffing, the order is to remove external and internal gown into both layers of sterile gloves, then to remove PAPR, keeping the respirator worn until exited from the contaminated area. Appropriate training and fit testing should be provided to all personnel prior to patient care, with additional staff present outside of designated hot zones to ensure correct donning and doffing procedures. The additional time necessary to comply with these procedures should also be considered, as time-sensitive encounters may be complicated by correct PPE application. Similarly, when procedures such as bronchoscopy or tracheostomy are being performed, appropriate PPE and practices must be utilized (Fig. 2, Fig. 3).

Fig. 2

Performing bedside tracheostomy on COVID patient. Appropriate PPE is critical for any contact with patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. During the tracheostomy, ECMO flow and sweep are increased and the ventilator is intermittently paused when the airway is open to help prevent aerosolization. COVID, coronavirus disease; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; PPE, personal protective equipment.

Fig. 3

Cannulation for ECMO in a patient with COVID-19. VV ECMO, used in this case, is appropriate for most patients with COVID-19, where impaired gas exchange is the predominant problem. A femoral venous cannula and right internal jugular cannula were used in this case. Appropriate PPE is also an important consideration. COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; PPE, personal protective equipment; VV, veno-venous.

Personnel

Implementation of multidisciplinary ECMO teams has been documented to improve clinical outcomes for patients with ARDS compared to decentralized and informal chains of command.³¹ When initiating ECMO for COVID-19-positive patients, personnel should be limited to reduce personal risk of acquiring the virus and to minimize rates of transmission and with clearly designated roles. Our general strategy utilizes 2 physicians in sterile garb for cannulation, 1 intensivist, 1 nurse, and 1 ECMO specialist or perfusionist for cannulation and initiation. Centers may adjust to their needs accordingly.³²

Patient Selection and Exclusion Criteria

Appropriate patient selection and timing of ECMO initiation is crucial to achieving favorable outcomes in ECMO; however, this process is in evolution for COVID-19. Terminal conditions, severe central nervous system compromise, and do-not-resuscitate orders preclude treatment with ECMO. According to ELSO guidelines, patients with extensive comorbid disease and advanced age should be scrutinized, while patients requiring mechanical ventilation in excess of 7 days should be excluded.²³ Once initiated, if cardiopulmonary function does not improve over a reasonable period of time, care may be deemed futile. ELSO has issued guidelines for the institution of ECMO in respiratory failure (Table 1). At our institution we employ similar criteria.

Table 1

ELSO Guidelines for the Implementation of Prolonged Extracorporeal Life Support for Adult Patients with Respiratory Failure.

Initiation of ECMO should be considered according to the following criteria:

Consideration should be given in hypoxic respiratory failure with associated mortality equal to or greater than 50% and indicated in those whose mortality is 80% or greater. Fifty percent mortality risk is associated with PaO₂/FiO₂ <150 on FiO₂ >90% and/or equivalent risk stratification scores (Murray score 2 to 3, AOI score 60, or APSS score 3) while 80% mortality risk is associated with PaO₂/FiO₂ <100 on FiO2 >90% (and/or Murray score 3 to 4, AOI >80, or APSS 8) despite optimal care for 6 hours or less.

CO₂ retention on mechanical ventilation despite high plateau pressure in excess of 30 cm H₂O.

Severe air leak syndromes.

Intubation requirement in pre-lung transplant patient.

Immediate cardiac or respiratory collapse (including PE, blocked airway, or nonresponsive to optimal care).

Relative contraindications resulting in suboptimal outcomes following ECMO therapy include:

High mechanical ventilation settings for 7 days or more, including FiO₂ >90% or plateau pressure >30 cm H₂O.

Major pharmacologic immunosuppression (absolute neutrophil count <400/ mm³).

Recent or expanding CNS hemorrhage.

Nonrecoverable or terminal injury (CNS injury, terminal malignancy).

Increasing age associates with increasing risk of poor outcome.

The above guidelines have been set forth according to the ELSO respiratory support guidelines v1.4 dated August 2017 which are available at https://www.elso.org/Resources/Guidelines.aspx.¹² Per ELSO guidelines, optimal ECMO outcomes are obtained when initiated early after respiratory failure within 1 to 2 days according to these criteria. Mortality scores include the Murray Score for Acute Lung Injury, AOI, APSS.

Abbreviations: AOI, Age-Adjusted Oxygenation Index; APSS, Acute Physiology of Stroke Score; CNS, central nervous system; ECMO, extra corporeal membrane oxygenation; ELSO, Extracorporeal Life Support Organization; PE, pulmonary embolism; PPE, personal protective equipment; VV, veno-venous.

Postcannulation Care

Ventilation Strategies

COVID-induced acute respiratory failure represents one of the chief insults secondary to infection. According to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) COVID-19 panel in conjunction with the WHO and CDC, clinical care guidelines have been offered to address the oxygenation and ventilation of COVID-19 patients.³³ For those who fail to respond to noninvasive ventilation including high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation is necessary. The SSC advocates low tidal volume (V_T) ventilation V_T 4 to 8 mL/kg of predicted body weight over higher tidal volumes defined as V_T >8 mL/kg and targeting a plateau pressure (P_PLAT) of <30 cm H₂O, as more aggressive ventilation pressures have been documented as causing VILI and contributing to multiorgan failure in patients with ARDS.³⁴ Interventions should focus on higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) as tolerated, with patients observed for signs of barotrauma for PEEP >10 cm H₂O. Limiting driving pressure is key to reducing VILI, as this is the key determinant of VILI and highly predictive of mortality in ARDS.³⁵ PEEP may be titrated at the bedside and, when optimized, driving pressure should be at its lowest level to achieve a particular tidal volume. Fluid support should be used conservatively as COVID-associated cardiac failure either alone or in combination with ARDS has been documented to cause as many as 40% of COVID-19 deaths.³⁶ Judicious fluid administration may be required to help prevent renal failure. Prone positioning for ventilation has also been demonstrated to be useful in ARDS and is recommended for 12 to 16 hours but should be used in conjunction with diligent observation for the development of pressure ulceration. Paralytic agents should be used as necessary and partial paralysis along with deep sedation is often helpful to improve ventilator synchrony and reduce work of breathing. Intermittent dosing should be used when possible, reserving continuous infusion for those with persistent ventilator dyssynchrony. These principles are also employed after a patient has been cannulated for ECMO.

Anticoagulation

Early observations suggest that COVID-19 patients are hypercoagulable and require increased anticoagulation, with some data suggesting that heparin administration may be beneficial.^37

-40 Patients have elevated fibrinogen and factor VIII levels that likely contribute to hypercoagulability. These changes can be further exacerbated by ECMO, which also leads to increased factor VIII. Before initiating a loading dose of heparin, baseline laboratory data should be obtained if possible including complete blood count, prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), d-dimer and fibrinogen levels, activated clotting time (ACT), and antithrombin activity. Visoelastic testing may be utilized in some centers and can be helpful in identifying hypercoagulable states in patients with COVID-19. Anticoagulation protocols vary, and some centers preferentially use direct thrombin inhibitors.^41
-43 There is no compelling data to support a single approach and heparin remains the gold standard anticoagulant. At our center, we have increased our aPTT goal to 60 to 80 for VV ECMO due to concerns for hypercoagulability. Values are checked every 6 hours until a consistent, stable level is reached, and then every 6 hours thereafter.

Routine monitoring for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis should be performed with platelet counts and skin assessments. Acquired hypofibrinogenemia may be observed in high consumption states as in disseminated intravascular coagulation and should prompt investigation for large volume thrombosis. Typically such low fibrinogen states are associated with increased bleeding risk and warrant necessary precaution. Patients with pronounced coagulopathy prior to initiation of ECMO or known heparin resistance should receive appropriate blood products including fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate, or platelets as indicated. Laboratory data suggesting increased risk of thrombosis, as measured by elevated d-dimer levels, increased fibrinogen, or as observed changes in thromboelastogram should prompt careful monitoring of the ECMO circuit, particularly the oxygenator.⁴⁴

Medical Therapies

Data on medical therapy for COVID-19 are currently in evolution. Initial therapy with corticosteroids has been discouraged for generalized use in a recent meta-analysis by the SSC and previous studies have demonstrated a possible role in promoting increased viral shedding in coronavirus strains other than SARS-CoV-19.^33,45 Still, corticosteroids may benefit patients with septic shock or who are worsening without other suitable options. Use of acetaminophen for antipyresis and broad-spectrum antimicrobial coverage for opportunistic secondary infections are also strongly encouraged by most professional societies. Intravenous immunoglobulin and convalescent plasma may be useful but have previously proven ineffective in modulating morbidity or mortality in other viral respiratory infections or have proven too difficult to pool in sufficient quantities to provide on clinically meaningful scales.^46,47

Antiviral Drugs

Limited data exist to support efficacy of antiviral therapy in COVID-19; however, this represents an area of ongoing investigation. Chloroquine and its metabolite hydroxychloroquine have previously been studied for their effects on the related SARS-CoV virus responsible for the SARS pandemic of 2003. Some Chinese centers have initiated recommendation guidelines for the implementation of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, although care should be taken in monitoring for cardiotoxic prolonged QTc changes that have been well documented with its use.^48,49 Preliminary data from the Brazilian CloroCovid-19 trial have identified increased adverse events and cardiotoxicity with increased dosing of chloroquine in severe COVID-induced ARDS including QTc prolongation and myocarditis.⁵⁰ To date there remains insufficient evidence to recommend use at this time, with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) currently recommending against use of high-dose chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine as of this writing.^51

-54

Lopinavir either alone or in combination with ritonavir as an adjunctive agent to inhibit metabolism of lopinavir has not been proven effective either in symptom abatement or mortality reduction.⁵⁵ Only nominal benefits including modest reductions in fever were observed in nonrandomized data on 47 patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir combination therapy.⁵⁶

Remdesivir is a similarly structured nucleoside analog to lopinavir previously studied in the treatment of Ebola and Nipha viruses. Therapeutic administration has demonstrated reductions in viral titers as early as 12 hours after administration of therapy with improved respiratory status and reduced pulmonary infiltrates on radiography in rhesus macaque models.⁵⁷ In a statement by the NIH, it was reported that the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was able to demonstrate 31% faster time to recovery in patients receiving remdesivir than those who received placebo, with a median time to recovery of 11 days.⁵⁸ Similarly, in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 1,063 hospitalized adults, a 10-day course was superior to placebo in shortening time to recovery with estimated mortality at 14 days 7.1% in the remdesivir group compared to 11.9% in the placebo group.⁵⁹

Tocilizumab is an anti-IL-6-receptor human monoclonal antibody currently used in the treatment of rheumatoid and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, which modulates release of proinflammatory cytokines and has been proposed as a possible modulator of COVID-19 symptomatology.⁶⁰ SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated similar cytokine profiles to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, with the constellation of these symptoms now referred to as cytokine release syndromes.⁶¹ The drug is currently under investigation for its potential role in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2.⁶² Single-center experiences and early reports from multicenter trials are promising, suggesting increased likelihood of survival but are not as yet definitive.^63,64

Conclusions

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has led to a global pandemic resulting in large numbers of cases of respiratory failure. ECMO can be life saving for select patients with refractory cardiopulmonary failure. VV ECMO is the appropriate configuration for most patients with predominantly respiratory failure, although VA ECMO or hybrid strategies may be appropriate for patients with impaired cardiac output. Regionalization of care to high-volume ECMO centers is most likely to lead to improved outcome as management of COVID-19 patients on ECMO is complex and requires a team-based approach. As experience with COVID-19 grows, ECMO is likely to have an important role in caring for severely ill younger patients with few comorbidities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the countless nurses, therapists, and other healthcare providers who risked their lives every day to care for the critically ill patients afflicted with COVID-19.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: David J. Kaczorowski has ownership and intellectual property interest in ECMOTEK, LLC.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Zachary Sanford

Ali Tabatabai

Daniel L. Herr

References

Oksanen

Kaakinen

Latikka

et al. Regulation and trust: 3-month follow-up study on COVID-19 mortality in 25 European countries. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2020; 6: e19218.doi:10.2196/19218

32301734

Kanduc

Shoenfeld

. On the molecular determinants of the SARS-CoV-2 attack. Clin Immunol 2020; 215: 108426.doi:10.1016/j.clim.2020.108426

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32311462

Australia and New Zealand Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ANZ ECMO) Influenza Investigators Davies

Jones

et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for 2009 influenza A(H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 2009; 302: 1888–1895.doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1535

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19822628

Thiagarajan

RR.

Barbaro

RP.

Rycus

et al. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry international report 2016. ASAIO J 2017; 63: 60–67.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000000475

27984321

Bartlett

RH.

Gazzaniga

AB.

Jefferies

et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cardiopulmonary support in infancy. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1976; 22: 80–93.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/951895

Hill

JD.

O’Brien

TG.

Murray

et al. Prolonged extracorporeal oxygenation for acute post-traumatic respiratory failure (shock-lung syndrome). Use of the Bramson membrane lung. N Engl J Med 1972; 286: 629–634.doi:10.1056/NEJM197203232861204

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5060491

Gao

H-N.

H-Z.

Cao

et al. Clinical findings in 111 cases of influenza A (H7N9) virus infection. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 2277–2285.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1305584

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23697469

Alshahrani

MS.

Sindi

Alshamsi

et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Ann Intensive Care 2018; 8: 3.doi:10.1186/s13613-017-0350-x

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29330690

Al-Tawfiq

JA.

Zumla

Memish

. Coronaviruses: severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in travelers. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2014; 27: 411–417.doi:10.1097/QCO.0000000000000089

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25033169

10.

Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) . COVID-19 Registry Dashboard, https://www.elso.org/Registry/FullCOVID19RegistryDashboard.aspx (2020, accessed 29 May 2020).

11.

Mazzeffi

Kon

Menaker

et al. Large dual-lumen extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulas are associated with more intracranial hemorrhage. ASAIO J 2019; 65: 674–677.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000000917

30398981

12.

Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) . Guidelines for Adult Respiratory Failure, https://www.elso.org/Resources/Guidelines.aspx (2017, accessed 29 May 2020).

13.

Murray

JF.

Matthay

MA.

Luce

et al. An expanded definition of the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 138: 720–723.doi:10.1164/ajrccm/138.3.720

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3202424

14.

Dechert

RE.

Park

PK.

Bartlett

. Evaluation of the oxygenation index in adult respiratory failure. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014; 76: 469–473.doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3182ab0d27

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24458052

15.

Villar

Ambrós

Soler

et al. Age, PaO2/FIO2, and plateau pressure score: a proposal for a simple outcome score in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: 1361–1369.doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001653

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27035239

16.

Chow

Alhussaini

Calvillo-Argüelles

et al. Cardiovascular collapse in COVID-19 infection: the role of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). CJC Open. Epub ahead of print 08 Apr 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.04.003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32363334

17.

Hendren

NS.

Drazner

MH.

Bozkurt

et al. Description and proposed management of the acute COVID-19 cardiovascular syndrome. Circulation 2020; 141: 1903–1914.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047349

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32297796

18.

Bangalore

Sharma

Slotwiner

et al. ST-segment elevation in patients with COVID-19 — a case series. N Engl J Med. Epub ahead of print 17 April 2020. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2009020

19.

Guo

et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019 in Shanghai, China. ASAIO J 2020; 66: 475–481.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000001172

32243266

20.

Lindholm

. Cannulation for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10(Suppl 5): S606–S612.doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.03.101

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29732177

21.

Fried

JA.

Ramasubbu

Bhatt

et al. The variety of cardiovascular presentations of COVID-19. Circulation 2020; 141: 1930–1936.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047164

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32243205

22.

Kehrl

Kaczorowski

. Extracorporeal life support for cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults: evolving evidence. ASAIO J 2016; 62: 364–369.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000000358

26919179

23.

Bartlett

RH.

Ogino

MT.

Brodie

et al. Initial ELSO Guidance Document: ECMO for COVID-19 patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure. ASAIO J 2020; 66: 472–474.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000001173

32243267

24.

Combes

Pesenti

Ranieri

. Fifty years of research in ARDS. Is extracorporeal circulation the future of acute respiratory distress syndrome management? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 1161–1170.doi:10.1164/rccm.201701-0217CP

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28459322

25.

Mazzeffi

Greenwood

Tanaka

et al. Bleeding, transfusion, and mortality on extracorporeal life support: ECLS Working Group on thrombosis and hemostasis. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101: 682–689.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.07.046

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26443879

26.

Cheng

Hachamovitch

Kittleson

et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97: 610–616.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.09.008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24210621

27.

Lo Coco

Lorusso

Raffa

et al. Clinical complications during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxigenation in post-cardiotomy and non post-cardiotomy shock: still the Achille’s heel. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10: 6993–7004.doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.11.103

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30746245

28.

World Health Organization . Infection prevention and control during health care when COVID-19 is suspected: interim guidance, 19 March 2020. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2020.

29.

Bahl

Doolan

de Silva

et al. Airborne or droplet precautions for health workers treating COVID-19? J Infect Dis. Epub ahead of print 16 Apr 2020. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa189

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32301491

30.

Ağalar

Öztürk Engin

. Protective measures for COVID-19 for healthcare providers and laboratory personnel. Turk J Med Sci 2020; 50(SI-1): 578–584.doi:10.3906/sag-2004-132

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32299205

31.

Dalia

AA.

Ortoleva

Fiedler

et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is a team sport: institutional survival benefits of a formalized ECMO team. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2019; 33: 902–907.doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2018.06.003

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30072265

32.

Ramanathan

Antognini

Combes

et al. Planning and provision of ECMO services for severe ARDS during the COVID-19 pandemic and other outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 518–526. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30121-1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32203711

33.

Alhazzani

Møller

MH.

Arabi

et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 854–887. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06022-5

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32222812

34.

Slutsky

AS.

Ranieri

. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2126–2136.doi:10.1056/NEJMra1208707

24283226

35.

Amato

MBP.

Meade

MO.

Slutsky

et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 747–755.doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1410639

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25693014

36.

Wang

et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA 2020; 323: 1061–1069.doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1585

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32031570

37.

Barrett

CD.

Moore

HB.

Yaffe

et al. ISTH interim guidance on recognition and management of coagulopathy in COVID-19: a comment. J Thromb Haemost. Epub ahead of print 17 Apr 2020. DOI: 10.1111/jth.14860

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32302462

38.

Connors

JM.

Levy

. Thromboinflammation and the hypercoagulability of COVID-19. J Thromb Haemost. Epub ahead of print 17 Apr 2020. DOI: 10.1111/jth.14849

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32302453

39.

Zhou

et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2020; 395: 1054–1062.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32171076

40.

Mummery

RS.

Rider

. Characterization of the heparin-binding properties of IL-6. J Immunol 2000; 165: 5671–5679.doi:10.4049/jimmunol.165.10.5671

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11067924

41.

Atallah

Mallah

SI.

AlMahmeed

. Anticoagulation in COVID-19. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. Epub ahead of print 30 Apr 2020. DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvaa036

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32352517

42.

Kang

Chen

Mui

et al. Cardiovascular manifestations and treatment considerations in COVID-19. Heart. Epub ahead of print 30 Apr 2020. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317056

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32354800

43.

Connors

JM.

Levy

. COVID-19 and its implications for thrombosis and anticoagulation. Blood 2020; 135: 2033–2040.doi:10.1182/blood.2020006000

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32339221

44.

Lequier

Horton

SB.

McMullan

et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuitry. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2013; 14(5 Suppl 1): S7–S12.doi:10.1097/PCC.0b013e318292dd10

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23735989

45.

Arabi

YM.

Mandourah

Al-Hameed

et al. Corticosteroid therapy for critically ill patients with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 197: 757–767.doi:10.1164/rccm.201706-1172OC

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29161116

46.

Liu

Zhao

et al. Clinical characteristics of imported cases of COVID-19 in Jiangsu Province: a multicenter descriptive study. Clin Infect Dis. Epub ahead of print 29 Feb 2020. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciaa199

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32109279

47.

Arabi

YM.

Hajeer

AH.

Luke

et al. Feasibility of using convalescent plasma immunotherapy for MERS-CoV infection, Saudi Arabia. Emerg Infect Dis 2016; 22: 1554–1561.doi:10.3201/eid2209.151164

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27532807

48.

multicenter collaboration group of Department of Science and Technology of Guangdong Province and Health Commission of Guangdong Province for chloroquine in the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia . [Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia]. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi 2020; 43: 185–188.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-0939.2020.03.009

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32164085

49.

van den Broek

MPH.

Möhlmann

JE.

Abeln

BGS

et al. Chloroquine-induced QTc prolongation in COVID-19 patients. Neth Heart J. Epub ahead of print 29 April 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s12471-020-01429-7

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32350818

50.

Borba

MGS.

Val

FFA.

Sampaio

et al. Effect of high vs low doses of chloroquine diphosphate as adjunctive therapy for patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3: e208857.doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8857

51.

Cortegiani

Ingoglia

Ippolito

et al. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care 2020; 57: 279–283.doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.03.005

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32173110

52.

Pereira

. Challenges and cares to promote rational use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a timely review. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2020; 23: 177–181.doi:10.1080/10937404.2020.1752340

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32281481

53.

Chowdhury

MS.

Rathod

Gernsheimer

. A rapid systematic review of clinical trials utilizing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. Acad Emerg Med. Epub ahead of print 02 May 2020. DOI: 10.1111/acem.14005

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32359203

54.

National Institutes of Health: COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel . Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines, https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/ (2020, accessed 16 May 2020).

55.

Cao

Wang

Wen

et al. A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1787–1799.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2001282

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32187464

56.

X-T.

Luo

Y-L.

Xia

S-C

et al. Clinical efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of Coronavirus disease 2019. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2020; 24: 3390–3396.doi:10.26355/eurrev_202003_20706

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32271456

57.

Williamson

BN.

Feldmann

Schwarz

et al. Clinical benefit of remdesivir in rhesus macaques infected with SARS-CoV-2. bioRxiv. Epub ahead of print 15 April 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2423-5

58.

National Institue of Allergy and Infectious Disease . NIH Clinical Trial Shows Remdesivir Accelerates Recovery from Advanced COVID-19, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-clinical-trial-shows-remdesivir-accelerates-recovery-advanced-covid-19 (2020, accessed 16 May, 2020).

59.

Beigel

JH.

Tomashek

KM.

Dodd

et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19—preliminary report. N Engl J Med. Epub ahead of print 22 May 2020. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32445440

60.

Zhang

J-W

et al. Cytokine release syndrome in severe COVID-19: interleukin-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab may be the key to reduce mortality. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 55: 105954.doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105954

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32234467

61.

Liu

Zhou

et al. Can we use interleukin-6 (IL-6) blockade for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced cytokine release syndrome (CRS)? J Autoimmun 2020; 111: 102452.doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102452

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32291137

62.

RQ.

Yuan

et al. FDA approval summary: tocilizumab for treatment of chimeric antigen receptor T cell-induced severe or life-threatening cytokine release syndrome. Oncologist 2018; 23: 943–947.doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0028

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29622697

63.

Luo

Liu

Qiu

et al. Tocilizumab treatment in COVID-19: a single center experience. J Med Virol 2020; 92: 814–818.doi:10.1002/jmv.25801

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32253759

64.

Sciascia

Aprà

Baffa

et al. Pilot prospective open, single-arm multicentre study on off-label use of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2020; 38: 529–532.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32359035