Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Critical Care logoLink to Critical Care
. 2024 May 10;28:158. doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04946-8

Incidence, risk factors and outcomes of nosocomial infection in adult patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ali Ait Hssain 1,2,3, Amir Vahedian-Azimi 4,✉, Abdulsalam Saif Ibrahim 1,2, Ibrahim Fawzy Hassan 1,2, Elie Azoulay 5, Michael Darmon 5
PMCID: PMC11088079  PMID: 38730424

Abstract

Background

An increasing number of patients requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for life support. This supportive modality is associated with nosocomial infections (NIs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the incidence and risk factors of NIs in adult.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases up to 2022. The primary endpoint was incidence of NI. Secondary endpoints included time to infection, source of infection, ECMO duration, Intensive care and hospital length of stay (LOS), ECMO survival and overall survival. Incidence of NI was reported as pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) as the effective index and 95% CIs using a random-effects model.

Results

Among the 4,733 adult patients who received ECMO support in the 30 included studies, 1,249 ECMO-related NIs per 1000 ECMO-days was observed. The pooled incidence of NIs across 18 studies involving 3424 patients was 26% (95% CI 14–38%).Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and bloodstream infections (BSI) were the most common NI sources. Infected patients had lower ECMO survival and overall survival rates compared to non-infected patients, with risk ratio values of 0.84 (95% CI 0.74–0.96, P = 0.01) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.71–0.90, P < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

Results showed that 16% and 20% lower of ECMO survival and overall survival in patients with NI than patients without NI, respectively. However, NI increased the risk of in-hospital mortality by 37% in infected patients compared with non-infected patients. In addition, this study identified the significant positive correlation between ECMO duration and ECMO-related NI.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-024-04946-8.

Keywords: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Incidence, Meta-analysis, Nosocomial infection, Prevalence, Risk factors

Background

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), also known as extracorporeal life support, is an advanced life support modality for critically-ill patients with severe but reversible cardiac and/or respiratory failure [1]. Despite improvements in both technology and management of ECMO, this technique is associated with specific risks and complications [2]. As consequences, many patients treated with ECMO face life-threatening complications such as bleeding, coagulopathy, thrombosis, infection, and stroke [3, 4].

Nosocomial infections (NI) are a common complication in patients treated with ECMO [5, 6]. Main sources of ECMO-related NI include bloodstream infections (BSIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), surgical site infections (SSIs), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [7, 8]. In addition to typical ECMO-related NI, specific ECMO-related infections, such as localized infections at peripheral cannulation insertion sites or mediastinitis in the setting of central cannulation also exists [9–11]. In studies examining different ECMO modalities, including (veno-venous) VV ECMO for respiratory failure and (veno-arterial) VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock, the infection risk was found to range from 8 to 64% [12–15]. Moreover, previous studies have suggested that NIs during ECMO may be related to some predisposing factors, including patients’ underlying condition, the severity of illness, and immunocompromised [16–18]. However, to date, there is no unified understanding of ECMO-related NI from diagnosis to treatment or prevention.

Significant heterogeneity may be expected from existing studies due to differences in case-mix, monocentric design of the performed studies, and inclusion of various ECMO modalities. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to investigate the incidence of ECMO-related NIs as well as to examine ECMO survival, overall survival and the risk factors related to NI in published studies.

Methods

Study design

This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to predefined eligibility criteria, search strategies, criteria for study selection and methods for extracting data. It was performed according following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2020 statement [19]. The predefined protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42023372412).

Search strategy and inclusion exclusion criteria

Electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and ProQuest were searched from inception until 1st November 2022. English language publications reporting outcome and clinical characteristics of NI in adult patients receiving ECMO for more than 24 h were selected. To further identify articles for inclusion, all relevant studies and their citations list were examined. The full search strategy is available in Supplementary file 1, Table S1.

The PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study type) mnemonic was used for synthesis in this meta-analysis to defined inclusion criteria [20]. Studies were eligible if they met all of the following inclusion criteria: (a) Population: adult (≥ 18 years) patients, male or female; (b) Intervention: supported by ECMO ≥ 24 h; (c) Comparison: compare NI patients with non-NI patients; (d) Outcomes: primary outcome indicators were the prevalence and incidence of NI, and secondary outcome indicators were ECMO survival, survival to hospital discharge, ECMO duration, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, microorganism species causing ECMO-related NI, risk factors related to NI and related clinical characteristics of NI and (e) Study type: published retrospective or prospective cohort study. Studies were excluded if (a) studies enrolled patients who had been co-infected before receiving ECMO treatment; (b) studies without access to the full text, publication on animal experiments, review articles, letters-to-the-editor, editorial, case report and conference papers; (c) studies published in non- English languages.

A first screening was performed by title and abstract to identify seemingly related articles. A second screening was performed on selected article after complete assessment of the manuscripts. At each step, assessment was performed independently by two authors (A. AH and A.VA). Disagreement was resolved by discussion and if needed by adjudication by a third author. The final agreement between the three evaluating authors was assessed through Kendall's coefficient of agreement (r = 0.92; P < 0.001). Data were extracted from the included studies using a pre-designed form (Supplementary file 2, sheet 1). Moreover, the methodological quality of included manuscripts was assessed [21, 22].

Quality appraisal

The methodological quality of the included manuscripts was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool for cohort studies.. The tool evaluates cohort studies based on 11 criteria, with responses recorded as “Yes”, “No”, “Unclear”, or “Not Applicable”. After evaluating all components of the study, an overall rating was determined based on the number of “Yes” responses: good (≥ 8 yes), medium (5–7 yes), or poor (≤ 4 yes). In addition, the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Observational Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies [21, 22]. The ROBINS-E tool assesses 7 domains of bias: confounding, selection of participants into the study, classification of exposures, departures from intended exposures, missing data, measurement of outcomes and, selection of the reported result. Domains are classified as low risk of bias, high risk of bias, or unclear risk of bias [23].

Definition of NI and survival rates

ECMO-related NI was defined according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as an infection occurring > 24 h after initiation and < 48 h after discontinuation of ECMO [24–26]. Various types of NIs include blood stream infection (BSI), respiratory tract infection (RTI), urinary tract infection (UTI), surgical site infection (SSI), cannula site infection (CSI), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [27, 28]. The overall survival rate was defined as the percentage of patients with ECMO who survived to discharge from the hospital out of the total number of patients who received ECMO.

Primary and secondary outcomes

The primary outcome of this study was the incidence (NI per 1000 ECMO days) of different types of NI in adult patients receiving ECMO. The secondary outcomes included incidence (number of patients developing ≥ 1 episode of NI), time to infection, sources of infection, pathogens, duration of ECMO, ICU and hospital length of stay, ECMO and hospital survival rate.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive results were reported as percentages, mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartile range (IQR) calculated from the total number of patients in the analysis. GraphPad Prism 9© (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA) and Excel program was used for and forest plots and graphs.

Incidence of NIs and its different types as primary outcomes were reported as pooled proportions and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while dichotomous outcomes were presented as pooled risk ratios (RR) and their 95% CIs. In addition, subgroups analysis was carried out based on countries. Due to methodologic variations and sample diversity across studies, the random-effects Linear Mixed Models (REML) was used to extract the pooled estimate. We applied the fixed effect model when the data were homogeneous.

Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared (I2) statistic, and significance results of the test and values > 50% for I2 indicated substantial heterogeneity and the corresponding p-values < 0.05 were also considered as significant [29]. In analyses with significant heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis and meta-regression analysis were conducted to check the source of heterogeneity. In addition, we used the Galbraith plot to examine heterogeneity [30]. Risk of publication bias was evaluated by visual inspection of funnel plots, the Egger [31] and Begg [32] test were also conducted. Moreover, a nonparametric trim-and-fill method of assessing publication bias was conducted and if there was a publication bias the modified effect size was estimated after adjusting [33]. Finally, we assessed the effect of individual studies on ES, using cumulative analysis based on publication year. Statistical analyses were performed on Review Manager (RevMan) version 5, and STATA version 17 (Stata Corp; College Station; TX, USA). All tests were two-sided y and p-values lower than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Literature search and manuscript selection

The search strategy included PubMed/Medline (n = 413), Web of Science (n = 493), ProQuest (n = 2) and Scopus (n = 808) databases resulting in 1,716 studies. After removing duplicates (n = 484) and irrelevant studies (n = 1169), 63 articles remained for full-text evaluation. Of these, 33 studies were excluded due to an inadequate study population (n = 11), inappropriate study design (n = 11) or lack of relevant outcome (n = 10) (Fig. 1). Details of the 33 excluded studies and the cause for their exclusion are available in Supplementary file 2, sheet 2.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The literature search results and the screening process based on PRISMA 2020 flowchart

Quality appraisal results

According to the results of quality assessment, most 24/30 (80%) studies had good quality [6, 8, 10, 12–14, 16, 34–50], and only 6/30 (20%) studies had moderate quality [17, 51–55] (Supplementary file 1, Table S2). In addition, 100% of included studies were classified as having low risk of bias based on Cochrane ROBINS-E tool (Supplementary file 1, Table S3–S4).

Characteristics of included studies.

Thirty studies with 4733 participants were included. Every one of these studies was of retrospective observational design. Of these participants, 65.4% (3097) were male and the median age was 50 (Range: 18–77). Among the included studies, only one was a multi-center retrospective study [55], while the rest were single-center retrospective studies. Main reason to initiate ECMO was need for cardiac support (63.1%, 2548), respiratory support (33.6%, n = 1356), and other causes for the remaining 3.3% (n = 135). Most of the studies included both VV ECMO and VA ECMO, four studies focusing only on VA ECMO [12, 16, 42, 51], and three studies on VV ECMO [37, 46, 54] (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of studies included according to patients with nosocomial infection (NI) and without NI

Authors names (Refs.) Publication Year Research Year Country Study population Age (years) Male (%)
NI group n (%) Non-NI group n (%) Total NI group non-NI group P-value NI group Non-NI group P-value
Hsu et al. [13] 2009 2001–2007 Taiwan 10 (8.8) 104 (91.2) 114 42.1 ± 13.9 52.2 ± 17.3 0.077 50 69.2 0.289
Sun et al. [14] 2010 1996–2007 Taiwan 45 (13.5) 289 (86.5) 334 47 ± 15 52 ± 17 0.099 73.3 67.1 0.407
Schmidt et al. [16] 2012 2003–2009 France 142 (64) 78 (36) 220 49.5 ± 16.9 47.9 ± 15.1 0.460 63 73 0.140
Aubron et al. [8] 2013 2005–2011 Australia 36 (24.6) 110 (75.4) 146 48.5 (37–57) 45 (31–56) 0.453 75 73 0.999
Pieri et al. [34] 2013 2009–2011 Italy 28 (45.9) 33 (54.1) 61 56.9 ± 12.1 57.2 (13.3) 0.900 71.4 75.8 0.700
Kim et al. [35] 2016 2012–2014 Korea 13 (27.7) 34 (72.3) 47 60.2 ± 8.8 50.4 ± 14.9 0.025* 53.8 64.7 0.493
Austin et al. [49] 2017 2011–2014 Australia 21 (21.2) 78 (78.8) 99 48.5 (39–56) 50.5 (40–58) 0.520 57.1 63.3 0.560
Grasselli et al. [17] 2017 2010–2015 Italy 52 (56.5) 40 (43.5) 92 NR NR NR NR NR NR
kim et al. [36] 2017 2011–2015 Korea 14 (23) 47 (77) 61 58.5 ± 12.5 61.3 ± 14.9 0.529 50 70.2 0.206
Kutleša et al. [37] 2017 2009–2016 Croatia 35 (35) 65 (65) 100 49 (33–60) 54 (42–64) 0.028* 68.6 66.1 0.806
Sun et al. [38] 2017 2009–2014 China 20 (26.7) 55 (73.3) 75  < 50: 10 (50%)  < 50: 37 (67%) 0.171 55 60 0.697
Bougle et al. [51] 2018 2013–2014 France 85 (55.9) 67 (44.1) 152  > 65: 30 (35%)  > 65: 24 (35%)  > 0.05 81.2 64.2 0.052
Juthani et al. [52] 2018 2012–2015 USA 26 (26) 74 (74) 100 51.2 ± 14.3 52.6 ± 16.2 0.710 57.7 59.4 0.870
Kim et al. [53] 2018 2014–2016 Korea 16 (42.1) 22 (57.9) 38 64.8 ± 9.7 61.5 ± 11.3 0.390 62.5 72.7 0.540
Li et al. [50] 2018 2012–2015 China 30 (40.5) 44 (59.5) 74 51.3 ± 13.1 46.7 ± 18.3 0.983 50 54.5 0.640
Na et al. [54] 2018 2012–2016 Korea 21 (17.4) 100 (82.6) 121 56 (50–65) 60 (51–68) 0.498 57 76 0.078
Allou et al. [10] 2019 2010–2016 France 39 (17.7) 181 (82.3) 220 56 (42–65) 52 (43–63) 0.790 53.8 70.2 0.040*
Menaker et al. [39] 2019 2010–2015 USA 19 (13.1) 126 (86.9) 145 46 (27–61) 44 (29–56) 0.700 57.9 55.6 0.850
Menaker et al. [39] 2019 2010–2015 USA 7 (5.7) 116 (94.3) 123 55 (22–66) 56 (44–64) 0.470 85.7 66.4 0.290
Silvetti et al. [12] 2019 2013–2017 Italy 7 (22.6) 24 (77.4) 31 NR NR NR NR NR NR
Ko et al. [40] 2020 2010–2018 Korea 35 (23.3) 115 (76.7) 150 67 (52.5–73) 60 (50–69.5) 0.277 65.7 77.4 0.242
Wang et al. [41] 2020 2013–2019 China 14 (20.3) 55 (79.7) 69 45.5 (18–67) 40 (18–77) 0.403 78.6 58.9 0.222
Wang et al. [42] 2021 2012–2017 China 131 (40.7) 191 (59.3) 322 57.02 ± 12.35 57.3 ± 11.52 0.959 74.81 73.82 0.897
Li et al. [6] 2021 2013–2019 China 16 (28.6) 40 (71.4) 56 51.13 ± 13.18 47.43 ± 15.1 0.400 50 62.5 0.390
Quintana et al. [43] 2021 2015–2017 USA 37 (18) 169 (82) 206 52 ± 16 54 ± 15 0.418 19 81 0.610
Quintana et al. [43] 2021 2015–2017 USA 18 (24) 57 (76) 75 50 ± 19 48 ± 18 0.596 26.2 73.8 0.616
Selçuk et al. [44] 2021 2012–2016 Turkey 27 (45) 33 (55) 60 53.3 ± 18.8 54.5 ± 15.8 0.895 NR NR NR
Lee et al. [45] 2022 2015–2021 Korea 97 (20.8) 368 (79.2) 465 58.9 ± 13.3 55.5 ± 14.9 0.031* 64.9 65.8 0.881
Lee et al. [45] 2022 2015–2021 Korea 26 (6.4) 368 (93.4) 394 58.5 ± 12.7 55.5 ± 14.9 0.323 53.8 65.8 0.215
Solla-Buceta et al. [55] 2022 2010–2015 Spain 87 (34.9) 162 (65.1) 249 51.5 ± 12.3 49.5 ± 12.5 0.239 79.3 74.7 0.414
Manerikar et al. [46] 2022 2016–2019 USA 15 (24.6) 46 (75.4) 61 45.5 ± 14.7 48.1 ± 15.7 0.560 NR NR NR
Xu et al. [47] 2022 2011–2020 China 42 (53.2) 37 (46.8) 79 57.3 ± 13.9 48.8 ± 15.5 0.014* 67 65 0.870
Zang et al. [48] 2022 2013–2020 China 38 (19.6) 156 (80.4) 194 46.9 ± 16.7 47.6 ± 17.9 0.935 57.89 62.18 0.627
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Type of supported device, cause of ECMO, ECMO mode in participants of studies included

Authors names (Refs.) Type of supported device and time (hours) Cause of ECMO Veno-arterial (VA) ECMO Veno-venous (VV) ECMO P-value
Respiratory (%) Cardiogenic (%) Others (%) NI group (%) non-NI group (%) Total (%) NI group (%) non-NI group (%) Total (%)
Hsu et al. [13] ECMO > 72 19.3 80.7 0 80 90 83.25 20 12.5 16.25  > 0.05
Sun et al. [14] ECMO > 48 20.4 79.6 0 60 83.5 71.75 37.8 14 25.9 0.001
Schmidt et al. [16] ECMO and MV > 48 3.6 96.4 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Aubron et al. [8] ECMO and MV > 48 34.2 65.8 0 75 63 138 25 37 31 0.226
Pieri et al. [34] ECMO and MV > 48 36.1 62.3 1.6 39.3 39.4 69 25 45.5 35.25 0.1
Kim et al. [35] ECMO > 48 NR NR NR 31.8 68.2 50 24 76 50  > 0.05
Austin et al. [49] ECMO > 48 17.2 82.8 0 85.7 44.9 65.3 4.8 41 22.9 0.001*
Grasselli et al. [17] ECMO and MV > 24 82.6 6.5 10.9 NR NR 20 NR NR 80 NR
kim et al. [36] VA ECMO > 48 NR NR NR NR NR 95.1 NR NR 4.9 NR
Kutleša et al. [37] VA ECMO > 48 72.0 0 28 0 0 0 100 100 100 0
Sun et al. [38] ECMO > 24 NR NR NR 85 94.5 89.7 5.5 15 10.25 0.386
Bougle et al. [51] VA ECMO and MV > 48 94.1 5.9 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Juthani et al. [52] ECMO > 48 48.0 36 16 34.6 36.5 35.5 65.4 63.5 64.4 0.86
Kim et al. [53] ECMO > 48 0 100 0 NR NR 92.1 NR NR 7.9 NR
Li et al. [50] ECMO > 48 0 100 0 90 86.4 88.2 10 11.4 10.7 0.827
Na et al. [54] VV ECMO > 48 71.9 0 28.1 0 0 0 100 100 100 0
Allou et al. [10] ECMO > 48 28.6 71.4 0 76.9 66.9 71.9 23.1 33.1 28.1 0.210
Menaker et al. [39] VV ECMO > 48 NR NR NR 0 0 0 100 100 100 0
Menaker et al. [39] VA ECMO > 48 43.1 56.9 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Silvetti et al. [12] VA ECMO > 48 0 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Ko et al. [40] VA ECMO > 24 0 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Wang et al. [41] ECMO > 48 17.4 75.4 7.2 50 92.7 71.9 50 7.3 28.6 0.001*
Wang et al. [42] VA ECMO > 48 0 100 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Li et al. [6] ECMO > 48 NR NR NR 93.75 92.5 93.1 6.25 7.5 6.9 0.870
Quintana et al. [43] VA ECMO > 48 26.2 70.4 3.4 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Quintana et al. [43] VV ECMO > 48 38.7 16 45.3 0 0 0 100 100 100 0
Selçuk et al. [44] ECMO > 48 3.3 96.7 0 NR NR 96.8 NR NR 3.2 NR
Lee et al. [45] ECMO > 48 44.1 55.9 0 37.1 54.9 46 26.8 26.4 26.6 0.993
Lee et al. [45] ECMO > 48 42.9 57.1 0 30.8 54.9 42.8 38.5 26.4 32.4 0.160
Solla-Buceta et al. [55] ECMO > 48 NR NR NR 46.08 68.01 57.01 54.02 31.99 43.01 0.001*
Manerikar et al. [46] VV ECMO > 48 NR NR NR 0 0 0 100 100 100 0
Xu et al. [47] ECMO > 48 65.8 34.2 0 10 38 24 90 62 76 0.003*
Zang et al. [48] ECMO > 48 53.6 46.4 0 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
Open in a new tab

Descriptive results

Clinical outcomes available in included studies are reported in Supplementary file 1, Table S5–S9. A comprehensive analysis of 30 studies involving 4733 adult patients on ECMO treatment revealed that there were 1249 ECMO-related NIs per 1000 ECMO-days. Males accounted for 60.93% of infected patients, with an average age of 53.17 ± 13.95 years. Hypertension was the most common underlying condition in both infected and non-infected patients (Supplementary file 1, Figure S1). Patients with NIs had significantly longer ECMO, ICU, and hospital stays (Supplementary file 1, Figure S1). The total incidence range of NIs was 4.1–85.4% with 2059 pathogens identified from 1,498 NI episodes in 1249 infected patients. The incidence of ECMO-related NI was 2.98–24.7% for BSI, 3.97–17% for SSI, 3.97–24.7% for RTI, 1.99–31% for UTI, 23.9–55.4% for VAP, and 7.1–11% for CSI. Gram-negative bacteria were identified as the most prevalent pathogens (48.6%), followed by Gram-positive bacteria and fungi. Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the most common Gram-negative bacteria, while Enterococcus spp., Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Staphylococcus aureus were the predominant Gram-positive bacteria.

Risk factors for NI

Results showed that the MV duration, hospital LOS, ECMO mode (VV ECMO vs. VA ECMO), having underlying diseases (yes vs. no), mechanical complication, SOFA score, SAPS score, ECMO catheter colonization, age, duration of arterial catheter, acute renal failure, acute hepatic failure, body mass index (MBI), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) < 5 min and hemodialysis were significantly increased the risk of NI (Supplementary file 1, Figure S2B). According to pooled analysis in the current study, the cumulative odds ratio of ECMO duration to predict NI was 1.05 (95%CI 1.02–1.08, P < 0.001), with substantial significant heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 98.8%, P < 0.001) (Supplementary file 1, Figure S3).

Primary outcomes

The pooled incidence rate of NIs, as reported in 18 studies involving 3,424 patients, was found to be 0.26 (95% CI 0.14–0.38, P < 0.001), indicating a statistically significant result. However, there was substantial heterogeneity observed between the studies (I2 = 91.8%, P < 0.001) (Fig. 2A). To address this heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis was conducted where the study or studies causing the heterogeneity were excluded. Upon recalculating, the adjusted pooled incidence of NI (based on 13 studies and 2,761 patients) was determined to be 0.12 (95% CI 0.07–0.16, P < 0.001) with a mild heterogeneity (I2 = 35.7%, P = 0.01) (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Forest plot for A pooled incidence NIs per 1000 ECMO-day and B pooled incidence of NIs per 1000 ECMO-day after reducing heterogeneity

Secondary outcomes

ECMO survival

The survival rate of patients undergoing combined ECMO treatment was determined to be 62% (95% CI 54–70; 11 studies involving 1651 participants). Notably, there was substantial heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 65.8%, P < 0.001 (Fig. 3A). The impact of nosocomial infections on ECMO survival was assessed in 10 studies involving 1613 patients. It was found that ECMO survival rates were significantly lower in patients with NIs, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 84% (95% CI 74–96%). A moderate level of heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I2 = 42.5%, P = 0.05) (Fig. 3B).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot for pooled ECMO survival rates for A all participants in each study and B between infected and non-infected patients

Overall survival

The overall survival rate was determined to be 54% (95% CI 49–59; 11 studies involving 1651 participants). Notably, there was significant heterogeneity observed among the studies (I2 = 64.5%, P < 0.001; Fig. 4A). Comparing the overall survival rates between the nosocomial infection (NI) group and control patients revealed a substantial difference, with the NI group showing a lower survival rate of 80% (95% CI 71–90; 24 studies involving 4205 patients). There was also notable heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 53.7%, P < 0.001, Fig. 4B). Additionally, detailed subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of publication bias can be found in Supplementary File 3, Figs. 1A–5D.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of overall survival rates for A all participants in each study and B between infected and non-infected patient

Time trend

Influence of NI on outcome was not affected by publication date (Supplementary file 1, Figure S4A). NI rate was however associated with the publication date (Supplementary file 1, Figure S4B). However, overall survival was lower among studies published from 2009 to 2013 (Supplementary file 1, Figure S5A–S5B).

Meta-regression

In order to explore the heterogeneity, a meta-regression analysis was conducted. Mortality was found to be linked to factors such as patients' severity of illness based on APACHE II scores, age, and VV ECMO, while ECMO survival was associated with nosocomial infections. The findings of the meta-regression analysis are presented in Supplementary File 1, Table S10. Additionally, a forest plot depicting the impact of these variables on the outcomes is included in Supplementary File 4, Figures S1–S19.

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the overall incidence of ECMO-related NIs and their impact on mortality, offering a comprehensive evaluation. Across 18 studies involving 3,424 patients, the pooled incidence of NIs was 26%. The time to the first NI ranged from 3 to 15.6 days after ECMO initiation, with a notable number of patients developing NIs beyond two weeks [16, 17, 44]. The incidence of NIs varied widely among studies, ranging from 4.1% to 85.4%. This variability could be attributed to factors like case mix, diagnostic criteria, reporting systems, antibiotic prophylaxis strategies, and center-specific effects [5, 56, 57].

The incidence of ECMO-related NIs and their impact on outcomes in patients supported by ECMO have been previously reported in literature. Studies have shown that the rate of infection can vary, with reports ranging from 8 to 46%. Previous reviews of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry by Bizzarro et al. [58], and Vogel et al. [59], found rates of infection to be 11.7% and 10.2%, respectively, which is lower than the rates seen in our study. This discrepancy among studies may be attributed to differences in study populations, methodologies, variations in infection prevention practices, the emergence of new pathogens and antimicrobial resistance, as well as improvements in surveillance and reporting methods [60, 61].

Overall, 2059 pathogens were isolated from 1498 NI episodes in 1249 (26.4%) infected patients. Our findings identified VAP (33%), BSI (15%), and RTI (15%) as the most common ECMO-related NIs, primarily caused by GNB like Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Studies indicate VAP rates ranging from 10.7 to 54.5%, mainly attributed to GNB such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Acinetobacter species, and GPB like Staphylococcus aureus [8, 16, 17, 40, 47, 51]. BSI prevalence in adult ECMO patients ranges from 2.6 to 44.7%, with GBP, especially coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus, being the primary pathogens, followed by GNB (10–20%) such as Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and fungal infections like Candida spp. [13, 37, 39]. RTI rates vary from 1.1 to 32.1%, primarily caused by GNB like Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Haemophilus influenza [16, 51].

The study, consistent with the previous work by Li et al. [5], identified several risk factors for NIs in adult patients undergoing ECMO. These risk factors included the duration of MV, length of hospital stay, ECMO mode, underlying diseases, disease severity, ECMO catheter colonization, patient age, duration of arterial catheter placement, acute renal failure, acute hepatic failure, BMI, ECPR exceeding 5 min, hemodialysis, and mechanical complications. Patients supported by VV ECMO exhibited a higher susceptibility to developing Nosocomial Infections (NIs) compared to those on VA ECMO [14, 41, 47]. Despite this, the VA ECMO modality is recognized for its increased complexity, entailing higher risks of vascular trauma, systemic embolization, and ischemia [62]. The exact reason behind the heightened NI risk in VV ECMO patients remains somewhat ambiguous. This elevated risk may be linked to the prolonged ECMO treatment and duration of ventilator support in VV ECMO patients [14, 41]. Additionally, the longer duration of VV ECMO in lung transplant recipients inherently exposes them to an extended period of susceptibility to NIs, potentially leading to skewed infection rates and outcomes when contrasted with heart transplant patients supported by VA ECMO with shorter durations of support. The study highlights a significant association between NIs and adverse outcomes in adult ECMO patients, resulting in a relative risk reduction of 16% in ECMO survival rates and 20% in overall survival rates. Moreover, NIs were found to elevate the relative risk of hospital mortality, particularly in cases of prolonged ECMO duration, which showed a potential four-fold increase in NI risk [34, 37, 38, 42, 45, 47, 52, 55].This heightened risk can be attributed to the critical condition of patients on long-term ECMO, prolonged exposure to risks, and the intensity of invasive care. Time-dependent bias is a critical consideration in studies involving ECMO duration and nosocomial infections. In the context of ECMO, the duration of ECMO support can act both as a risk factor for developing infections and as a consequence of infection occurrence. Prolonged ECMO duration has been associated with an increased risk of nosocomial infections due to factors such as prolonged exposure to invasive devices, prolonged hospitalization, and compromised immune function [63]. Longer ECMO duration not only increases the likelihood of acquiring infections but can also be a consequence of infections that prolong the need for ECMO support. This bidirectional relationship underscores the complexity of managing infections in ECMO patients and emphasizes the need for vigilant monitoring, infection prevention strategies, and timely interventions to mitigate the risks associated with prolonged ECMO support.

The observed increase in NI rates in more recent studies [45–48], despite older studies showing lower survival rates is indeed a noteworthy finding [13, 14, 16]. This apparent discrepancy does not necessarily negate the conclusion that NIs can impact mortality in ECMO patients. Instead, it may reflect improved surveillance, detection, and reporting of NIs over time. One plausible explanation for this occurrence could be advancements in critical care practices and infection control measures over time. With improvements in healthcare protocols, including enhanced sepsis management, antimicrobial stewardship, and ECMO circuit technology, it is possible that while NI rates have risen in recent years, overall survival rates have improved due to better management of infections. Moreover, the evolving landscape of ECMO therapy, including patient selection criteria, cannulation techniques, and anticoagulation strategies, may have influenced both NI rates and patient outcomes over time. The study could be useful for clinicians and researchers regarding infection risk factors in ECMO patients. Further studies aiming at identifying high-risk patients are needed so that clinicians and researchers can pinpoint high-risk patients for tailored monitoring and interventions.

This study has several limitations that should be considered. Firstly, the retrospective and single-center nature of most included studies, along with small sample sizes, limits data availability on confounding factors and the establishment of appropriate exposure and comparison groups. Secondly, there was significant heterogeneity due to variations in case mix, nosocomial infection rates, and management practices across different centers. Thirdly, a notable limitation is the inadequate consideration of time dependency of nosocomial infections in most studies, potentially leading to misleading associations between ECMO/ICU duration and infection outcomes. Lastly, the potential impact of changes in sepsis definitions and management practices over the years on the identification of BSI in ECMO patients is a critical consideration. These evolving standards may introduce variability in how infections are identified and managed, which could affect the study's outcomes. To address these limitations, we have conducted sensitivity analyses to mitigate potential biases arising from these changes, ensuring the robustness of our results. These limitations highlight the need for future research to address these gaps and improve our understanding of the impact of NIs on patient outcomes.

Conclusion

This study highlights a heightened risk of NIs, particularly Ventilator-VAP, BSI, and RTI, in patients undergoing ECMO for refractory respiratory or cardiogenic failure. The pooled analysis revealed a 26% incidence rate per 1000 ECMO-days of NIs in adult ECMO patients. Our findings indicate a 16% and 20% lower ECMO survival and overall survival, respectively, in patients with NIs compared to those without. The dynamic nature of ECMO therapy, encompassing evolving patient selection criteria, cannulation techniques, and anticoagulation strategies, may have impacted both NI rates and patient outcomes. Further research is warranted to delve deeper into assessing the risk of nosocomial infections while considering time-dependent confounders, evaluating the efficacy of prevention strategies, and understanding their impact on both infection rates and outcomes.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1 (DOCX 793 KB) (792.6KB, docx)
Additional file 2 (XLSX 72 KB) (71.5KB, xlsx)
Additional file 3 (DOCX 217 KB) (216.8KB, docx)
Additional file 4 (DOCX 2245 KB) (2.2MB, docx)

Acknowledgements

Thanks to guidance and advice from the “Clinical Research Development Unit" of Baqiyatallah Hospital.

Abbreviations

ECMO

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

NIs

Nosocomial infections

BSIs

Bloodstream infections

UTIs

Urinary tract infections

SSIs

Surgical site infections

VAP

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

CSI

Cannula site infection

VA ECMO

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

VV ECMO

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

LOS

Length of stay

CIs

Confidence intervals

RR

Risk ratios

REML

Linear Mixed Models

Author contributions

A.AH, A.VA and M.D contributed to the conception and design of the study. A.AH, A.VA and A.SI performed the title and abstract screening. A.SI, I.FH and E.A performed the data extraction. A.SI and M.D organized the data and created the characteristic tables. A.VA and A.AH performed the data analysis. A.AH, I.FH and A.SI wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The predefined protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42023372412).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this study.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Ventetuolo CE, Muratore CS. Extracorporeal life support in critically ill adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190(5):497–508. 10.1164/rccm.201404-0736CI. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Coco LV, Lorusso R, Raffa GM, Malvindi PG, Pilato M, Martucci G, 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(12):6993–7004. 10.21037/jtd.2018.11.103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kim JH, Pieri M, Landoni G, Scandroglio AM, Calabrò MG, Fominskiy E, et al. Venovenous ECMO treatment, outcomes, and complications in adults according to large case series: a systematic review. Int J Artif Organs. 2020;44(7):481–8. 10.1177/0391398820975408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zangrillo A, Landoni G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Greco M, Greco T, Frati G, et al. A meta-analysis of complications and mortality of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Resusc. 2013;15(3):172–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Li X, Wang L, Wang H, Hou X. Outcome and clinical characteristics of nosocomial infection in adult patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 857873. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.857873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Li ZJ, Zhang DF, Zhang WH. Analysis of nosocomial infection and risk factors in patients with ECMO treatment. Infect Drug Resist. 2021;14:2403–10. 10.2147/IDR.S306209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wang J, Christensen C, Siddique A, Merritt H, Cawcutt K. Characteristics of venous–venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation related bloodstream infections. J Card Surg. 2022;37(5):1431–4. 10.1111/jocs.16361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aubron C, Cheng AC, Pilcher D, Leong T, Magrin G, Cooper DJ, et al. Infections acquired by adults who receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: risk factors and outcome. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(1):24–30. 10.1086/668439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thomas G, Hraiech S, Cassir N, Lehingue S, Rambaud R, Wiramus S, et al. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation devices-related colonisations and infections. Ann Intensive Care. 2017. 10.1186/s13613-017-0335-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Allou N, Lo Pinto H, Persichini R, Bouchet B, Braunberger E, Lugagne N, et al. Cannula-related infection in patients supported by peripheral ECMO: clinical and microbiological characteristics. ASAIO J. 2019;65(2):180–6. 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bull T, Corley A, Lye I, Spooner AJ, Fraser JF. Cannula and circuit management in peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an international survey of 45 countries. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(12): e0227248. 10.1371/journal.pone.0227248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Silvetti S, Ranucci M, Pistuddi V, Isgro G, Ballotta A, Ferraris L, et al. Bloodstream infections during post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. Int J Artif Organs. 2019;42(6):299–306. 10.1177/0391398818817325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hsu MS, Chiu KM, Huang YT, Kao KL, Chu SH, Liao CH. Risk factors for nosocomial infection during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Hosp Infect. 2009;73(3):210–6. 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sun HY, Ko WJ, Tsai PR, Sun CC, Chang YY, Lee CW, et al. Infections occurring during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in adult patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140(5):1125-1132.e1122. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.O’Neill JM, Schutze GE, Heulitt MJ, Simpson PM, Taylor BJ. Nosocomial infections during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(8):1247–53. 10.1007/s001340101029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schmidt M, Brechot N, Hariri S, Guiguet M, Luyt CE, Makri R, et al. Nosocomial infections in adult cardiogenic shock patients supported by venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55(12):1633–41. 10.1093/cid/cis783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Grasselli G, Scaravilli V, Di Bella S, Biffi S, Bombino M, Patroniti N, et al. Nosocomial infections during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: incidence, etiology, and impact on patients’ outcome. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(10):1726–33. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Biffi S, Di Bella S, Scaravilli V, Peri AM, Grasselli G, Alagna L, et al. Infections during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: epidemiology, risk factors, pathogenesis and prevention. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;50(1):9–16. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.02.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71. 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cumpston MS, McKenzie JE, Thomas J, Brennan SE. The use of ‘PICO for synthesis’ and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions. F1000Research. 2020. 10.12688/f1000research.24469.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Morgan RL, Thayer KA, Santesso N, Holloway AC, Blain R, Eftim SE, et al. Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the 'target experiment’ concept in studies of exposures: rationale and preliminary instrument development. Environ Int. 2018;120:382–7. 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928. 10.1136/bmj.d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wang WW, Zhou QX, Ma L, Feng SH, Yang ZR, Sun F, et al. Introduction of a tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of environmental exposure (ROBINS-E). Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2022;43(1):98–104. 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20201112-01324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control. 1988;16(3):128–40. 10.1016/0196-6553(88)90053-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC/NHSN surveillance definitions for specific types of infections. 2018; (17): 1–30.
  • 26.Mornese Pinna S, Sousa Casasnovas I, Olmedo M, Machado M, Juàrez Fernández M, Devesa-Cordero C, et al. Nosocomial infections in adult patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a cardiac intensive care unit. Microorganisms. 2023. 10.3390/microorganisms11041079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Haque M, Sartelli M, McKimm J, Abu BM. Health care-associated infections—an overview. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:2321–33. 10.2147/idr.S177247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Control CfD, Prevention. Pneumonia (ventilator-associated [VAP] and non-ventilator-associated pneumonia [PNEU]) event. Device-associated Module PNEU/VAP. 2015.
  • 29.Cumpston MS, McKenzie JE, Welch VA, Brennan SE. Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. J Public Health. 2022. 10.1093/pubmed/fdac036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wang D, Mou ZY, Zhai JX, Zong HX, Zhao XD. Application of Stata software to test heterogeneity in meta-analysis method. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2008;29(7):726–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63. 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pieri M, Agracheva N, Fumagalli L, Greco T, De Bonis M, Calabrese MC, et al. Infections occurring in adult patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: the two-year experience of an Italian national referral tertiary care center. Med Intensiva. 2013;37(7):468–75. 10.1016/j.medin.2012.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kim DW, Yeo HJ, Yoon SH, Lee SE, Lee SJ, Cho WH, et al. Impact of bloodstream infections on catheter colonization during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Artif Organs. 2016;19(2):128–33. 10.1007/s10047-015-0882-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kim GS, Lee KS, Park CK, Kang SK, Kim DW, Oh SG, et al. Nosocomial infection in adult patients undergoing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Korean Med Sci. 2017;32(4):593–8. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.4.593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kutleša M, Santini M, Krajinović V, Papić N, Novokmet A, Josipović Mraović R, et al. Nosocomial blood stream infections in patients treated with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Minerva Anestesiol. 2017;83(5):493–501. 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.11659-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sun G, Li B, Lan H, Wang J, Lu L, Feng X, et al. Risk factors for nosocomial infections in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation supportive therapy. Med Clin. 2017;149(10):423–8. 10.1016/j.medcli.2017.03.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Menaker J, Galvagno S, Rabinowitz R, Penchev V, Hollis A, Kon Z, et al. Epidemiology of blood stream infection in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients: a cohort study. Heart Lung. 2019;48(3):236–9. 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2019.01.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ko RE, Huh K, Kim DH, Na SJ, Chung CR, Cho YH, et al. Nosocomial infections in in-hospital cardiac arrest patients who undergo extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. PLoS ONE. 2020. 10.1371/journal.pone.0243838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Wang J, Huang J, Hu W, Cai X, Hu W, Zhu Y. Risk factors and prognosis of nosocomial pneumonia in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a retrospective study. J Int Med Res. 2020. 10.1177/0300060520964701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Wang J, Wang L, Jia M, Du Z, Hou X. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-related nosocomial infection after cardiac surgery in adult patients. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;36(6):743–51. 10.21470/1678-9741-2020-0068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Quintana MT, Mazzeffi M, Galvagno SM, Herrera D, Boyajian GP, Hays NM, et al. A retrospective study of infection in patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;112(4):1168–75. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.12.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Selçuk ÜN, Sargın M, Baştopçu M, Mete EMT, Erdoğan SB, Öcalmaz Ş, et al. Microbiological spectrum of nosocomial ECMO infections in a tertiary care center. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;36(3):338–45. 10.21470/1678-9741-2020-0077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lee EH, Lee KH, Lee SJ, Kim J, Baek YJ, Ahn JY, et al. Clinical and microbiological characteristics of and risk factors for bloodstream infections among patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep. 2022. 10.1038/s41598-022-19405-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Manerikar A, Watanabe S, Kandula V, Karim A, Thakkar S, Saine M, et al. Indwelling central venous catheters drive bloodstream infection during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. ASAIO J. 2022;68(6):859–64. 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Xu W, Fu Y, Yao Y, Zhou J, Zhou H. Nosocomial infections in nonsurgical patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a retrospective analysis in a Chinese hospital. Infect Drug Resist. 2022;15:4117–26. 10.2147/IDR.S372913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zang F, Zhang X, Liu J, Li S, Zhang Y, Li Z. Hospital expenses of nosocomial infection associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in China: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Palliat Med. 2022;11(2):431–41. 10.21037/apm-21-1825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Austin DE, Kerr SJ, Al-Soufi S, Connellan M, Spratt P, Goeman E, et al. Nosocomial infections acquired by patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Resusc. 2017;19:68–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li B, Sun G, Cheng Z, Mei C, Liao X, Li J, et al. Analysis of nosocomial infections in post-cardiac surgery extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support therapy. Heart Surg Forum. 2018;21(5):E387–91. 10.1532/hsf.1789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bougle A, Bombled C, Margetis D, Lebreton G, Vidal C, Coroir M, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients assisted by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: epidemiology and risk factors of treatment failure. PLoS ONE. 2018. 10.1371/journal.pone.0194976. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Juthani BK, Macfarlan J, Wu J, Misselbeck TS. Incidence of nosocomial infections in adult patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Heart Lung. 2018;47(6):626–30. 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kim DW, Cho HJ, Kim GS, Song SY, Na KJ, Oh SG, et al. Predictive value of procalcitonin for infection and survival in adult cardiogenic shock patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Chonnam Med J. 2018;54(1):48–54. 10.4068/cmj.2018.54.1.48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Na SJ, Chung CR, Choi HJ, Cho YH, Yang JH, Suh GY, et al. Blood stream infection in patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(7):871–4. 10.1017/ice.2018.90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Solla-Buceta M, Gonzalez-Vilchez F, Almenar-Bonet L, Lambert-Rodriguez JL, Segovia-Cubero J, Gonzalez-Costello J, et al. Infectious complications associated with short-term mechanical circulatory support in urgent heart transplant candidates. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2022;75(2):141–9. 10.1016/j.rec.2020.11.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Seidelman JL, Lewis SS, Huslage K, Strittholt N, Vereen S, Sova C, et al. To be a CLABSI or not to be a CLABSI-that is the question: the epidemiology of BSI in a large ECMO population. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39(3):362–5. 10.1017/ice.2017.320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Fu KX, MacLaren G. Infectious complications of postcardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Pediatr Critic Care Med. 2020;21(11):1019–20. 10.1097/pcc.0000000000002447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bizzarro MJ, Conrad SA, Kaufman DA, Rycus P. Infections acquired during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in neonates, children, and adults. Pediatr Critic Care Med. 2011;12(3):277–81. 10.1097/PCC.0b013e3181e28894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Vogel AM, Lew DF, Kao LS, Lally KP. Defining risk for infectious complications on extracorporeal life support. J Pediatr Surg. 2011;46(12):2260–4. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2011.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Peña-López Y, Machado MC, Rello J. Infection in ECMO patients: changes in epidemiology, diagnosis and prevention. Anaesth Critic Care Pain Med. 2024;43(1): 101319. 10.1016/j.accpm.2023.101319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Peitz GJ, Murry DJ. The influence of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on antibiotic pharmacokinetics. Antibiotics. 2023;12(3):500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Maclaren G, Butt W. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and sepsis. Crit Care Resusc. 2007;9(1):76–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.MacLaren G, Schlapbach LJ, Aiken AM. Nosocomial infections during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in neonatal, pediatric, and adult patients: a comprehensive narrative review. Pediatr Critic Care Med J Soc Critic Care Med World Federation Pediatr Intensiv Critic Care Soc. 2020;21(3):283–90. 10.1097/pcc.0000000000002190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Additional file 1 (DOCX 793 KB) (792.6KB, docx)
Additional file 2 (XLSX 72 KB) (71.5KB, xlsx)
Additional file 3 (DOCX 217 KB) (216.8KB, docx)
Additional file 4 (DOCX 2245 KB) (2.2MB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Critical Care are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES