Table 1.
Randomized or propensity matched studies with vv-ECMO.
| Year, author | Study type | Method | Inclusion | ECMO indications | n | ECMO duration (days) | Survival |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009, Peek et al. [12] | Multicenter RCT | Randomization to referral ECMO center versus conventional treatment in referring hospital | ECMO indication | 18–65 years, reversible respiratory failure + Murray ≥ 3.0 or respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.2) |
180 (90 vv-ECMO, 90 conventional) | 9 | 63% (ECMO) versus 47% (conventional) 6-month survival without disability (p = 0.03) |
| 2011, Noah et al. [118] | Prospective, multicenter cohort study with propensity matching | 2009-2010 Swift database; suspected and confirmed H1N1 in 192 ICUs in the UK | Referral to an ECMO center | 18–65 years, reversible respiratory failure + Murray ≥ 3.0 or respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.2) |
80 patients referred (69 vv-ECMO) 75 propensity matched ECMO patients |
9 | 76% survival to discharge (ECMO) versus 53% (propensity) (p = 0.01) |
| 2013, Pham et al. [15] | Prospective, multicenter cohort study with propensity matching | 2009-2010 H1N1 infected patients in 114 participating French ICUs | H1N1 related ARDS treated with ECMO | Not specified | 123 ECMO patients (107 vv-ECMO, 16 va-ECMO) 52 propensity matched ECMO patients |
11 | 50% (ECMO) versus 40% (conventional) (p = 0.32, NS) |
| 2014, Guirand et al. [119] | Multicenter cohort study | 2001–2009 database in 2-level I trauma centers in the US | Acute hypoxic failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 80 + FiO2 > 90% + Murray >3 .0) | 16–55 years, PaO2/FiO2-ratio ≤80, FiO2 > 0.9, Murray > 3.0 | 26 vv-ECMO 17 propensity matched ECMO patients |
32 | 65% (ECMO) versus 24% (conventional) (p = 0.01) |