Skip to main content
PMC home page
Membranes logoLink to Membranes
. 2021 Mar 30;11(4):251. doi: 10.3390/membranes11040251

A Systematic Literature Review of Packed Red Cell Transfusion Usage in Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Thomas Hughes 1, David Zhang 2, Priya Nair 1,2, Hergen Buscher 1,2,*
Editor: Gennaro Martucci
PMCID: PMC8065680  PMID: 33808419

Abstract

Background: Blood product administration plays a major role in the management of patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and may be a contributor to morbidity and mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the published literature to determine the current usage of packed red cell transfusions. Predefined search criteria were used to identify journal articles reporting transfusion practice in ECMO by interrogating EMBASE and Medline databases and following the PRISMA statement. Results: Out of 1579 abstracts screened, articles reporting ECMO usage in a minimum of 10 adult patients were included. Full texts of 331 articles were obtained, and 54 were included in the final analysis. All studies were observational (2 were designed prospectively, and two were multicentre). A total of 3808 patients were reported (range 10–517). Mean exposure to ECMO was 8.2 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 7.0–9.4). A median of 5.6% was not transfused (interquartile range (IQR) 0–11.3%, 19 studies). The mean red cell transfusion per ECMO run was 17.7 units (CI 14.2–21.2, from 52 studies) or 2.60 units per day (CI 1.93–3.27, from 49 studies). The median survival to discharge was 50.8% (IQR 40.0–64.9%). Conclusion: Current evidence on transfusion practice in ECMO is mainly drawn from single-centre observational trials and varies widely. The need for transfusions is highly variable. Confounding factors influencing transfusion practice need to be identified in prospective multicentre studies to mitigate potential harmful effects and generate hypotheses for interventional trials.

Keywords: ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, extracorporeal life support, blood management, transfusion

1. Introduction

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rapidly evolving area of intensive care practice, with the potential to rescue patients with severe cardiac or respiratory failure who would almost certainly have died in earlier eras. However, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence to guide this invasive and resource-intensive therapy, and as such, much practice for avoiding ECMO-induced harm is guided by consensus, first principles and local policy.

The extracorporeal circuit exposes the entire blood volume to a large surface area of artificial material as well as significant shear forces, with resultant red cell damage and deranged activation of the coagulation pathways. Depending on the cannulation strategy, the site of vascular access may also be a point of significant blood loss. Therefore, hemorrhage, hemolysis and decreased red cell lifespan are ubiquitous in patients receiving ECMO. Further, thrombocytopenia and coagulopathies are common findings, either due to anticoagulant therapy, the underlying condition, or the circuit itself. Thus, patients receiving ECMO have a substantial transfusion requirement, with the attendant comorbidity and drain on blood bank resources. Management of anticoagulation during ECMO is an area of intense research, with recent systematic reviews [1,2] attempting to address the varying patterns of management. However, to date, transfusion practice has not been given the same attention.

Within broader intensive care practice, transfusion strategy has been guided by seminal trials such as TRIC [3] and the ensuing meta-analyses [4], whereby red cell transfusion triggers of 7 g/dL are now commonplace for most patient groups, with separate consideration given to patients with active bleeding or high risk of ischemia, such as due to flow-limiting atherosclerotic lesions. It is not well established where optimal transfusion management of the highly heterogeneous ECMO population sits within the similarly heterogeneous ICU population; however, it is believed that ECMO patients have an increased risk of bleeding and exposure to blood products, but this has not been quantified.

The goal of this review is to better characterise historical and recent red cell transfusion practice within adult ECMO patients.

2. Materials and Methods

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [5].

2.1. Search Strategy

We searched multiple electronic databases (Medline and EMBASE) to identify all potentially relevant publications in English reporting transfusion burden in ECMO patients between 1996 and 2016. The search strategies are specified in Table S1.

2.2. Study Inclusion and Exclusion

Studies were included if they reported on 10 or more patients aged 18 years or older, where ECMO was used for support in the ICU. For mixed studies, 20% or fewer patients aged under 18 was considered acceptable. ECMO used solely as a substitute for traditional cardiopulmonary bypass in the operating theatre was not accepted. Concurrent use of an intra-aortic balloon pump was acceptable. Studies reporting on other mechanical cardiovascular support modalities, such as a ventricular assist device concurrently with ECMO, were only included when a discrete ECMO-only group, meeting all other criteria, was present. Articles were excluded if the quantity of red cell transfusions was not reported. As a minimum, studies needed to state red cell transfusion amounts per ECMO run, per day or for the whole cohort. For consistency, product usage was required to be by component (e.g., red cells) rather than aggregated, and, similarly, data reported as mL/kg were excluded. Studies reporting outcomes related to a single event in the ECMO run (e.g., decannulation), or a limited time frame rather than the full ECMO run, were not included. Finally, when otherwise valid but chronologically overlapping cohorts from the same institution were encountered, only the largest cohort was included.

2.3. Data Extraction, Quality Assessment and Analysis

One author (TH) performed a full-text review and data extraction, with oversight from a senior colleague (HB). The primary outcome recorded was daily or total transfusion usage per patient. Secondary outcomes of interest were transfusion practice by ECMO modality, indication, duration, and survival status. Where available, cannulation strategy, membrane type, anticoagulation target (either activated clotting time (ACT) or activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)); prespecified transfusion triggers and the fraction of patients not transfused were also recorded. This information was tabulated and processed with Microsoft Excel. Quality assessment of the selected full-text papers was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale [6].

To facilitate comparison, transfusion volumes were converted to units of red cells (300 mL). Mean values for a variable were estimated, where necessary, using median-to-mean formulae outlined by Wan [7] for sets with a range or interquartile value. Meta-analysis and forest plot generation were then performed using R with the meta package [8], with the random effect size assumption after assessment of heterogeneity through I2. Values without standard deviation data were reported as median/interquartile range.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results and Characteristics of Included Studies

The original search identified 1577 citations, and two further citations were added during the review of references from a full-text assessment. Exclusion was recorded based on a single criterion, although studies were frequently rejected on several grounds. The most common exclusions were pediatric focus (510), fewer than 10 patients reported (330) and ECMO use (or lack thereof) not meeting the criteria in the methods section above (185). The remaining exclusions were for absent abstracts, duplicate citations, review articles and nonhuman/ex-vivo reports.

Full-text assessment was performed on the remaining 331 publications. The most frequent reason for exclusion was inadequate or missing data for RBC transfusion (182 studies). Other exclusions are detailed in the consort diagram (Figure 1). A further 28 studies were not able to be included due to the inclusion of a study from the same institution in an overlapping recruitment period and with a larger cohort. All included studies are summarised in Table 1 (54 studies).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

CONSORT diagram.

Table 1.

Summary of included studies.

Author/Year (Reference) Location Study Period Start and End Year N ECMO Type
(VA/VV/Not Spec)		 ECMO Days (Mean +/−SD) Transfusion Trigger (g/dL or HCt %) % Not Transfused PRBC on ECMO PRBC/Day (Mean +/−SD) Survival to Discharge (%) Study Type Brief Description
Anselmi 2016 [9] France 2005–2014 30 27/3/0 8.9 (+/−7.3) 24% 0.0% 2.97 (+/−1.63) 50.0% R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock after heart transplant (47%) or cardiotomy (40%) and small number of respiratory failures—cohort report on use of recombinant factor VIIa
Buscher 2016 [10] Australia 2009–2010 48 32/16/0 8.0 (+/−7.0) 8 g/dl 8.3% 1.57 (+/−1.79) 69.0% R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock of all causes, including eCPR and severe respiratory failure (mostly ARDS but 3 post-transplant)
Czobor 2016 [11] USA 2012–2014 25 25/0/0 NR 8.0% 40.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—cardiogenic shock and eCPR—cohort report on predictive utility of SOFA score
Hryniewicz 2016 [12] USA 2012–2013 37 37/0/0 4.7 (+/−2.3) 8.1% 2.52 (+/−1.61) 64.9% R. obs Mixed cardiogenic shock post-AMI (18), cardiotomy (5), decompensated failure (6)
Krueger 2016 [13] Germany 2011–2015 61 0/61/0 12.0 (+/−6.5) 10 g/dL 1.15 (+/−1.35) R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure, principally ARDS—cohort review for outcomes of anticoagulation with VTE prophylaxis only in VV ECMO patients
Mazzeffi 2016 [14] USA 2010–2013 132 68/54/0 8.0 (+/−6.7) 2.42 (+/−1.97) 50.8% R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock, mostly postcardiotomy (38) and ARDS (54)—cohort review for predictors of bleeding events
Opfermann 2016 [15] Austria 2001–2014 300 300/0/0 6.1 (+/−4.8) 0.74 (+/−0.79) 51.7% R. obs Surgical—cardiogenic shock postcardiotomy—cohort review for predictors of survival
Pan 2016 [16] Australia 2010–2014 184 128/56/0 7.0 (+/−4.9) 1.30 (+/−1.33) 73.4% R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock of varying causes, including postcardiotomy, post-transplant and severe respiratory failure of multiple causes—cohort review for predictors of elevated plasma-free Hb
Staudacher 2016 [17] Germany 2010–2013 90 90/0/0 2.2 (+/−2.7) 8 g/dL 67.8% 0.79 (+/−1.51) 24.4% R. obs Nonsurgical—cardiogenic shock after arrest or AMI—cohort comparison of outcomes of antiplatelet therapy vs. none
Tanaka 2016 [18] USA 2010–2014 84 84/0/0 41.7% R. obs Mixed—mostly cardiogenic shock, small postcardiotomy group—cohort review of predictors for vascular access complications
Tauber 2016 [19] Austria 2010–2012 38 26/12/0 8.5 g/dL 0.0% 1.65 (+/−1.87) Prosp. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock and severe respiratory failure—cohort review for predictors of higher transfusion requirement
Trudzinski 2016 [20] Germany 2010–2015 63 0/63/0 22.4 (+/−17.4) 7 g/dL (or ScvO2<65%) 0.98 (+/−1.17) 66.7% R. obs Nonsurgical—half ARDS, half chronic lung disease awaiting transplant
Agerstrand 2015 [21] USA 2010–2012 38 4/34/0 9.2 (+/−3.5) 7g/dL 36.8% 0.15 (+/−0.25) 73.7% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory +/− cardiac failure due to ARDS of varying aetiologies—cohort report on restrictive approach to transfusions
Esper 2015 [22] USA 2007–2013 18 18/0/0 3.3 (+/−2.2) 5.6% 3.47 (+/−2.36) 66.7% R. obs Nonsurgical—cardiogenic shock after AMI
Halaweish 2015 [23] USA 2002–2013 95 18/66/11 15.5 (+/−13.4) 0.18 (+/−0.16) 63.2% R. obs Mixed—mainly respiratory failure (75); also cardiogenic shock (14) and eCPR (6)—cohort comparison of roller and centrifugal pumps, only duration >5days
Ius 2015 [24] Germany 2012–2014 10 10/0/0 10.2 (+/−4.2) 10.0% 1.75 (+/−1.78) 50.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—acute on chronic respiratory failure—cohort of VV ECMO requiring conversion to VV-A
Lehle 2015 [25] Germany 2009–2014 318 0/318/0 8 g/dL 0.31 (+/−0.36) R. obs Nonsurgical—mixed respiratory failure cohort (pneumonia, trauma, acute on chronic lung disease, pulmonary haemorrhage)—cohort report on predictors of ECMO-associated haemolysis
Li 2015 [26] China 2011–2012 123 123/0/0 4.3 (+/−3.7) 30% 4.49 (+/−2.88) 34.1% R. obs Surgical—cardiogenic shock post-cardiotomy
Mohite 2015 [27] UK 2010–2014 59 59/0/0 8.9 (+/−5.1) 2.56 (+/−1.81) R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock (decompensated heart failure, postcardiotomy, post-AMI)—cohort comparison of outcomes between sedated and “awake” ECMO patients
Omar 2015 [28] USA 2007–2013 154 126/28/0 5.6 (+/−6.6) 5.50 (+/−5.71) 33.1% R. obs Mixed—mainly cardiogenic shock (cardiomyopathy, eCPR, AMI, postcardiotomy, heart transplant, PE) with smaller group respiratory failure and lung transplant—cohort report on predictors of mortality on ECMO, including plasma-free Hb
Panigada 2015 [29] Italy 2011–2013 22 0/22/0 9.0 (+/−5.5) 0.97 (+/−1.09) Prosp. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure due to ARDS/COPD or bridge to lung transplant—cohort report comparing clinical, lab and CT findings for oxygenator thrombosis
Poss 2015 [30] Germany 2012–2013 15 15/0/0 26.7% 66.7% R. obs 3ctr Nonsurgical—cardiogenic shock, mostly post-AMI, some myocarditis—cohort comparison of ECMO vs. i-Cor assist device
San Roman 2015 [31] Argentina 2011–2014 22 9/13/0 5.1 (+/−4.3) 0.0% 0.89 (+/−1.02) 68.2% R. obs Mixed—cardiorespiratory failure in pre- and postoperative lung transplant plus group of non-transplant respiratory failure
Voelker 2015 [32] Germany 2009–2011 18 0/18/0 21.7 (+/−30.0) 7 g/dL 1.35 (+/−1.16) 61.1% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (pneumonia, trauma, other)—cohort report on restrictive transfusion approach
Wu 2015 [33] Taiwan 2008–2014 19 10/9/0 7.0 (+/−4.8) 3.49 (+/−3.62) 68.4% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (trauma-associated ARDS)
Guirand 2014 [34] USA 2001–2009 26 0/26/0 9.3 (+/−9.5) 0.90 (+/−0.36) 57.7% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (trauma-associated ARDS)
Loforte 2014 [35] Italy 2006–2012 228 228/0/0 10.8 (+/−9.2) 28% 0.0% 1.29 (+/−1.03) 63.2% R. obs 2 ctr Mixed—cardiogenic shock, mostly postcardiotomy (118), transplant failure (37), post-AMI (27), decompensated heart failure (40) and myocarditis (6)
Roch 2014 [36] France 2009–2013 85 8/77/0 9.7 (+/−4.5) 10 g/dL 0.90 (+/−0.86) 43.5% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS)
Shum 2014 [37] Hong Kong 2009–2013 37 13/24/0 5.5 (+/−2.3) 0.0% 0.53 (+/−0.72) 73.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—mostly pneumonia, smaller cohort myocarditis—cohort report on regional citrate anticoagulation for haemodialysis access via ECMO circuit
Fagnoul 2013 [38] Belgium 2012–2012 24 24/0/0 1.6 (+/−2.1) 7 g/dL 12.5% 8.90 (+/−11.25) 25.0% Prosp. obs Nonsurgical—eCPR
Michaels 2013 [39] USA 2009–2010 15 7/8/0 9.8 (+/−1.0) 3.90 (NR) 60.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (H1N1 influenza)
Mikus 2013 [40] Italy 2007–2011 14 14/0/0 9.0 (+/−13.8) 28% 0.0% 6.00 (+/−0.84) 42.9% R. obs Surgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock—cohort report on CentriMag pump
Pieri 2013 [41] Italy 2009–2012 16 13/3/0 6.0 (+/−4.0) 8 g/dL28% 1.58 (+/−1.20) R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock (mixed primary CS or postsurgical) or ARDS—cohort report on use of phosphorylcholine-coated oxygenator
Repesse 2013 [42] France 2006–2011 15 11/4/0 17.3 (+/−8.9) 24% 0.96 (+/−0.26) R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock (mixed primary CS or postsurgical) or ARDS—cohort report of use of recombinant factor VIIa for refractory bleeding on ECMO
Loforte 2012 [43] Italy 2007–2011 73 73/0/0 10.9 (+/−7.6) 28% 0.0% 1.23 (+/−1.04) 45.2% R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock, mostly postcardiotomy (50/73), 12/73 post-AMI and 8/73 post-heart transplant
Park 2012 [44] Brazil Not reported 10 2/8/0 9.2 (+/−9.4) 60.0% 0.24 (+/−0.39) 40.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—mixed respiratory failure (mostly pneumonia)—cohort of patients from commencement of ECMO service in this hospital
Garcia 2011 [45] USA 2009–2009 10 0/10/0 20.0 (+/−15.0) 35% 2.44 (+/−1.60) 60.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—mixed respiratory failure (ARDS, advanced chronic respiratory disease pending lung Tx)—cohort report on ambulating VV ECMO patients
Han 2011 [46] South Korea 2006–2009 68 59/9/0 5.3 (+/−6.6) 35% 6.03 (+/−6.23) R. obs Nonsurgical—cardiogenic shock or respiratory failure (ARDS)—comparison of nafamostat vs. heparin for anticoagulation during ECMO; large cohort of eCPR (41/68)
Lamarche 2011 [47] Canada 2000–2009 32 32/0/0 2.2 (+/−2.0) 9.08 (+/−8.66) R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock, primary or associated with cardiac surgery, some eCPR-comparison of Impella vs. ECMO
Formica 2010 [48] Italy 2002–2009 42 42/0/0 7.9 (+/−5.3) 30% 3.10 (+/−3.90) 38.1% R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock, primary or associated with cardiac surgery, 2/42 massive PE
Kanji 2010 [49] Canada 2002–2006 50 50/0/0 2.9 (+/−2.6) 10 g/dL 12.38 (NR) R. obs Mixed—cardiogenic shock, primary or associated with cardiac surgery—comparison of peripheral vs. central cannulation with respect to transfusion and bleeding events
Marasco 2010 [50] Australia 2000–2009 39 39/0/0 6.8 (+/−2.6) 8 g/dL 3.15 (+/−1.99) R. obs Surgical—post-heart transplant primary graft failure
Rastan 2010 [51] Germany 1996–2008 517 517/0/0 3.3 (+/−2.9) 4.12 (+/−3.67) 24.8% R. obs Surgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock
Ang 2009 [52] Singapore 2003–2006 42 37/5/0 6.5 (+/−3.2) 10 g/dL 2.08 (+/−1.49) 26.2% R. obs Mixed—pre- and post-cardiac surgery, myocarditis, PE, severe respiratory failure
Davies 2009 [53] Australia 2009–2009 68 5/65/0 10.7 (+/−6.1) 0.68 (+/−0.67) R. obs 15 ctr Nonsurgical—H1N1 pneumonia and other viral ARDS
Muller 2009 [54] Germany 2006–2008 60 0/60/0 9.0 (+/−6.1) 8 g/dL 1.00 (+/−1.06) 45.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—mixed severe respiratory failure (pneumonia/trauma/aspiration/sepsis/other)
Bakhtiary 2008 [55] Germany 2003–2006 45 45/0/0 6.4 (+/−4.5) 2.55 (+/−2.03) 28.9% R. obs Surgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock—mixed indications (CABG/valves/LVAD, 2/45 post heart transplant)
Dietl 2008 [56] USA 1994–2006 38 38/0/0 5.6 (+/−2.6) 5.05 (+/−2.45) 60.5% R. obs Nonsurgical—Hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome
Frenckner 2002 [57] Sweden 1995–2002 38 0/0/38 17.0 (+/−12.9) 2.53 (+/−1.70) R. obs Nonsurgical—mixed severe respiratory failure (pneumonia/trauma/PE/aspiration/other)
Smith 2001 [58] Australia 1995–1998 17 17/0/0 4.1 (+/−2.1) 10 g/dL 7.21 (+/−3.13) 41.2% R. obs Surgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock
Lewandowski 1997 [59] Germany 1989–1995 49 0/49/0 23.1 (+/−19.7) 15 g/dL 2.10 (+/−1.90) 55.1% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS)
Peek 1997 [60] UK 1989–1995 50 2/48/0 8.6 (+/−7.4) 14 g/dL 4.0% 2.20 (+/−2.00) 66.0% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS/pneumonia/asthma)—mixed cohort
Author/year (reference) Location Study period start and end year N ECMO type
(VA/VV/not spec)		 ECMO days (mean +/−SD) Transfusion trigger (g/dL or HCt %) % not transfused PRBC on ECMO PRBC/day (mean +/−SD) Survival to discharge (%) Study type Brief description
Butch 1996 [61] USA 1988–1994 74 0/0/74 10.9 (+/−10.9) 14 g/dL 1.4% 4.60 (+/−3.77) 45.9% R. obs Nonsurgical—respiratory failure (ARDS/pneumonia/asthma)—mixed cohort (infection, trauma, post-solid organ transplant)
Muehrcke 1996 [62] USA 1992–1994 23 23/0/0 2.4 (+/−1.5) 17.84 (+/−8.88) 31.8% R. obs Surgical—postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ECMO—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, VA—venoarterial, VV—venovenous, HCt—hematocrit, PRBC—units of packed red blood cells, AMI—acute myocardial infarction; ARDS—acute respiratory distress syndrome; eCPR—ECMO-facilitated cardiopulmonary resuscitation; LVAD—left ventricular assist device; NR—data not reported; SOFA—Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (score); study types: retrospective (R) or prospective (P) observational.

3.2. Methodological Quality

Two studies were designed prospectively, with the remainder reporting retrospective reviews of institutional databases. One study reported on 15 centres [53], another included three hospitals [30], and all others were single-centre. All papers were scored on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale as cohort studies, with a maximum possible score of 9. The median score was 7 (IQR 6–7; Table S2).

3.3. Patient and ECMO Characteristics

Fifty-four studies reported a transfusion dose during ECMO, with a total of 3808 patients. Four studies each had patients under 18 years [39,53,55,61] (3 of 15, 3 of 68, 3 of 38 and 1 of 23 patients, respectively), whilst the remainder were entirely adult cohorts. Other characteristics are described in Table 1.

Exclusively postcardiotomy cohorts were represented in 8 studies (1078 patients), with one paper reporting on patients requiring ECMO for primary cardiac graft dysfunction [50] and the remainder reporting outcomes after a variety of cardiac surgical procedures. Twenty-seven studies (1349 patients) covered exclusively nonsurgical patients, predominantly patients receiving venovenous (VV) ECMO due to ARDS and other severe acute respiratory failure, although 6 of these 27 were venoarterial (VA) cohorts related to postinfarction cardiogenic shock or ECMO-facilitated CPR.

Survival to hospital discharge was available in 41 studies (2984 patients), with a median of 50.8% (IQR 40.0–64.9%). Survival of ECMO alone was reported in 28 studies (1635 patients), with a median of 65.2% (CI 56.1–69.6%).

Peripheral cannulation was the dominant strategy, present in 2756 of 3375 (81.6%) patients with available data. This was broadly distributed, with 28 studies reporting rates of 100% and a further 7 studies reporting rates above 80%. The remaining 11 studies, where data were provided, had peripheral cannulation rates between 39–80%, whilst 9 studies did not report their cannulation strategy.

Centrifugal pumps were most common (40 studies). The remainder were accounted for by roller pumps (n = 5), a mixture (n = 2), other pump designs (n = 1) or not specified (n = 6).

Where reported, most membranes used were poly-methyl pentene (PMP; n = 33). Polypropylene (n = 5), silicon (n = 3) and combinations of membrane types (n = 3) were the rest (not specified in 9 studies). No cohort commencing after 2006 reported a membrane-type other than PMP.

Thresholds for the administration of blood products were given in less than half of the included studies. Nineteen studies specified a hemoglobin concentration (median 8 g/dL, range 7–15, IQR 8–10), whilst 10 specified a hematocrit threshold (median 28%, range 24–35, IQR 28–30). To facilitate comparison, hematocrit targets were converted to hemoglobin concentration by dividing by three.

Platelet targets were provided in 22 studies (median transfusion trigger 50,000/µL, range 20,000–100,000, IQR 50,000–75,000). Only 5 studies mentioned targets for fibrinogen concentration (range 1–3 g/L), and 2 reported an INR threshold.

Nineteen studies reported whether transfusion was universal in their cohort, with a median of 5.6% (IQR 0–11.3%) not receiving red cell support during ECMO. This was broadly distributed, with 5 studies reporting a universal need for transfusion, whilst other studies reported rates as high as 60% [44] and 67% [17] of freedom from red cell transfusion.

3.4. Reported Complications

Hemorrhage as the direct cause of death had a median incidence of 2% (IQR 0–6%, 16 studies with 890 patients). Intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 4% (IQR 2–7%, 25 studies with 2207 patients). Procedural intervention for bleeding was reported in 16 studies (1308 patients) with a median frequency of 35% (IQR 11–46%). Major bleeding, as per the heterogeneous definitions thereof in the 16 studies (651 patients) reporting it, occurred in a median of 30% of ECMO patients (IQR 18–45%).

Ischemic stroke was reported in 20 papers (1810 patients), with a median incidence of 5% (IQR 2–10%); 4 of these publications reported no patients with strokes. Limb ischemia and DVT were frequently reported together; the aggregated outcome was noted in a median of 12% of patients (IQR 6–20%, 28 studies with 2067 patients). Intracardiac clot incidence was reported in only 3 papers (76 patients) with rates of 4, 5 and 15 percent. Circuit failure (or requirement for circuit change as a surrogate for impending failure) occurred in a median of 9% of patients (IQR 5–15%) in the 20 studies (1642 patients).

Renal failure requiring dialysis support frequently occurred (median 49% [IQR 38–58%]; 28 studies, 2197 patients).

3.5. Transfusion Rates

The meta-analysed transfusion data is presented in Table 2 and Table 3, and Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of included studies.

Variable Finding (95% Confidence Range) Number of Papers (Patients) Included Cochrane’s Q Test I2 Test of Heterogeneity p-Value for Comparison
Baseline Characteristics
Age (years) 48.9 (46.3–51.5) 53 (3786) 2128 98% n/a
Gender (% male) 68.4% (IQR 61.1–75.2) 50 (3624) n/a n/a n/a
Modality (patients) Venovenous 1177 54 (3808) n/a
Venoarterial and combined 2508
Not specified 123
ECMO duration (days) All patients 8.2 (7.0–9.4) 49 (3328) 1781 97% n/a
Venoarterial patients only 5.6 (4.4–6.8) 20 (1895) 557 97% <0.001
Venovenous patients only 14.6 (10.6–18.6) 9 (309) 63 87%
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Results—red cell transfusion rates.

Variable Finding (95% Confidence Range) Number of Papers (Patients) Included Cochrane’s Q Test I2 Test of Heterogeneity p-Value for Comparison
ECMO Modality PRBC Units/Run or PRBC Units/Day
Whole ECMO run All patients 17.7 (14.2–21.2) 52 (3452) 2816 98%
VA patients only 18.3 (14.2–22.4) 24 (2043) 1207 98% 0.85
VV patients only 19.3 (10.4–28.1) 9 (309) 95 90%
Per ECMO day All patients 2.60 (1.93–3.27) 49 (3619) 3643 99%
VA patients only 3.86 (2.51–5.22) 23 (1933) 1519 99% <0.001
VV patients only 1.23 (0.89–1.57) 12 (665) 292 96%
ECMO indication PRBC units/day
Postcardiotomy 5.56 (2.20–8.93) 8 (1078) 1235 99% 0.04
Nonsurgical 1.93 (1.26–2.59) 25 (1309) 730 97%
Peripheral cannulation rate PRBC units/day
Greater than 90% 1.74 (1.24–2.25) 29 (2031) 1223 98% 0.02
Less than 90% 4.53 (2.31–6.76) 13 (1220) 793 99%
Membrane type PRBC units/day
Polymethylpentene only 2.11 (1.49–2.73) 32 (2113) 1643 98% 0.11
Silicon, polypropylene or mixed 4.46 (1.68–7.24) 11 (895) 578 98%
Survival status (median 51.2%) PRBC units/day
Above median 1.65 (1.08–2.23) 19 (1295) 965 98% 0.001
Below median 3.82 (2.23–5.42) 19 (1565) 1417 99%
Major bleeding (median 30%) PRBC units/day
Above median 1.83 (1.14–2.52) 7 (336) 137 96% 0.99
Below median 1.84 (0.90–2.78) 8 (290) 210 97%
Upper aPTT target (median 60s) PRBC units/day
Above median 2.76 (1.87–3.65) 8 (585) 115 94% 0.34
Below median 1.98 (0.64–3.32) 11 (1164) 409 98%
Upper ACT target (median 180s) PRBC units/day
Above median 2.87 (1.57–4.16) 8 (343) 602 99% 0.92
Below and including median 2.95 (2.02–3.88) 14 (842) 301 96%
Transfusion trigger (median 9.3 g/dL) PRBC units/day
Above and including median 2.39 (1.67–3.10) 15 (986) 758 98% 0.005
Below median 1.41 (0.86–1.97) 13 (797) 388 97%
Open in a new tab

PRBC: units of packed red blood cells, VA—venoarterial, VV—venovenous.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Forest Plot-all included studies.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Forest plot comparing VV and VA modality.

VV patients received significantly fewer transfusions per ECMO day (1.23 units (0.89–1.57) versus 3.86 (2.51–5.22), p < 0.001) but not per ECMO run (19.3 (10.4–28.1) versus 18.3 (14.2–22.4)) when compared to patients treated with VA ECMO. Studies with postcardiotomy patients (5.56 (2.20–8.93) versus 1.93 (1.26–2.59), p = 0.04) and with a >10% rate of central cannulation (4.53 (2.31–6.76) versus 1.74 (1.24–2.25), p = 0.02) had twice as many transfusions per ECMO day compared to other studies. Studies reporting an above-median survival rate also reported significantly less need for PRBC transfusions (1.65 (1.08–2.23) versus 3.82 (2.23–5.42), p = 0.001). If a below-median transfusion trigger was used, the associated number of PRBC transfusions was significantly less (1.41 (0.86–1.97) versus 2.39 (1.67–3.10), p = 0.005). However, no significant association was seen between the upper anticoagulation target (either ACT or APTT groups) and the frequency of transfusions. A major bleeding event rate above the median was also not associated with more PRBC transfusions.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to provide a synopsis of red cell transfusion practice in published ECMO literature. Transfusion practices and thresholds vary widely by patient indication, institution, and country, in part due to the dearth of quality trial data to date. Similarly, practices have varied significantly over time-early editions of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization’s guidelines (the “Red Book”) [63], which called for hemoglobin targets of 15 g/dL, whilst most studies in our review that commenced after 2006 transfused for hemoglobin levels less than 8–10 g/dL.

In the 51 studies included in our pooled effect calculation, patients received a mean of 2.60 units of PRBCs per day of ECMO support. However, the distribution of values from our studies was wide, ranging from 0.15–17.8 units per patient per day, an unsurprising finding given the diverse range of patient cohorts sampled. The subgroup comparisons performed begin to suggest some of the drivers for this heterogeneity, with our findings in keeping with other published data from smaller data sets and meta-analyses addressing complications in specific subgroups.

VA ECMO predicted higher transfusion rates in several single-centre studies where a comparison was made with VV [10,14,64], and our study suggested an approximately three-fold increase in red cell use for VA patients. A 2019 meta-analysis [65] suggested central cannulation was associated with higher rates of in-hospital death, reoperation for bleeding complications and transfusion, in keeping with the association seen in our analysis, where groups with exclusive or very high rates of peripheral cannulation had a significantly lower transfusion burden. Postcardiotomy ECMO use also appears to be associated with greater frequency of transfusion; however, this is an almost-exclusively VA ECMO cohort, with higher rates of central cannulation than most other ECMO indications, as well as an expected higher frequency of bleeding events and coagulation disturbances due to the nature of the operations and of exposure to intraoperative cardiopulmonary bypass. As such, there is a significant confounding effect present that our study is not powered to disentangle.

Several studies included in this review have drawn associations between increased transfusions and poorer survival in ECMO patients [14,64,66,67] as well as in other ICU populations such as post cardiac surgery [68], while our work suggests higher transfusion rates in cohorts with below-median survival. The direction and strength of this association are uncertain, as the transfusion of any allogeneic blood product comes with well-recognised immunologic and nonimmunologic risks. Conversely, the requirement for blood transfusion may be a signal of underlying adverse events (especially hemorrhage or hemolysis) that are themselves more directly likely to lead to death.

The use of PMP membranes versus earlier membrane technology (based on silicon or polypropylene) appeared to show a lower transfusion rate, but this finding fell short of statistical significance. This is out of keeping with published experience, starting with early cohorts of patients managed with PMP membranes [69]. The difference reported in other series has been attributed to decreased membrane surface area leading to lower rates of contact activation of clotting processes, a lower priming volume and heparin-coated surfaces. All included studies commencing after 2006 used PMP membranes exclusively. Other changes in ECMO equipment over our study period include a shift toward centrifugal pumps and heparin-bonded circuits, which are thought to decrease red-cell trauma [23] and coagulation activation, which may all have contributed to this finding.

Adoption of a lower transfusion threshold was associated with a lower red cell transfusion rate. One single-centre trial found the implementation of a more restrictive transfusion protocol for postcardiotomy VA ECMO patients led to a drop of 45% in red cell units transfused per ECMO run [70].

Significant heterogeneity in transfusion targets was seen, which is not unexpected; one published international survey [71] of critical care clinicians found the greatest variation in transfusion thresholds was for ECMO patients. Centres with higher ECMO volumes have reported lower thresholds for transfusions from clinician surveys [72]. In our review, most studies commenced after 2009 had a threshold of 10 g/dL or lower. This evolution is likely to be driven by a variety of factors, including greater familiarity with ECMO management as well as the growth of critical care literature finding noninferiority of lower transfusion thresholds in other patient groups, such as patients with sepsis [73], GI bleeding [74] and after cardiac surgery [75]. These trials have been influential on a more restrictive transfusion practice being adopted in the broader ICU population, and it is not unreasonable to think this change has leached into ECMO management as well.

One area where our study showed weaker associations was anticoagulation targets and bleeding complications, with neither variable showing a robust association with transfusion rates. This finding may be driven by the smaller number of studies included. For anticoagulation, the spread of anticoagulation targets was relatively narrow and across two noncomparable modalities (ACT and aPTT), which may limit the ability to distinguish a real finding. Further, anticoagulation targets are only a surrogate for the achieved degree of anticoagulation (which would be expected to be a better predictor of bleeding events and, thus, transfusion) and do not reliably account for other commonly found derangements of coagulation function in ECMO patients. Several single-centre reports [13,76,77,78] suggest that lower anticoagulation targets or anticoagulation-free ECMO is feasible and is associated with lower rates of bleeding and transfusion. For bleeding, the lower number of included patients, as well as the lack of a standardised definition of bleeding, likely confounded the result, as, from first principles, a higher rate of major bleeding would be expected to predict a greater need for transfusion. This could be further explored by using standardised criteria such as those proposed by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [79].

4.1. Data Quality

All included publications were observational cohort studies—some included a case-control design, but the data of interest were best described as a cohort in how it was extracted and incorporated into the analysis. Overall, the quality of papers was relatively consistent—most were retrospective cohorts where the outcomes of interest were readily demonstrated (ECMO exposure and transfusion outcomes), and, furthermore, papers that were inadequate in these areas generally did not meet all inclusion criteria; more variability was seen in follow-up arrangements, such as whether survival after ICU or hospital discharge was tracked.

Many studies were excluded for not publishing transfusion data, even in circumstances of discussing bleeding on ECMO or aggregating all product types in their data. Similarly, the heterogeneity of the patient population studied was also broad in terms of indication, with its implication for likely blood product requirements. However, given the role of ECMO as a therapy at the end of a final common pathway of cardiac or respiratory deterioration, this is a strength of our data set.

4.2. Limitations and Sources of Error

The heterogeneity of our data set, as well as the heterogeneity of reporting red cell use and relevant complications such as bleeding, is a distinct limitation for drawing detailed conclusions about cause and effect. It is unknown whether our cohort is representative of the global ECMO population, which has likely evolved and diversified as ECMO has become a more accepted and viable support option. Equally, our results could be skewed by publication bias as it is possible that studies with particularly high or low transfusion rates might choose not to highlight this data. This is partly counteracted by the inclusive nature of the study. The only criteria needed for inclusion was to report a red cell transfusion rate, which is, thus, the most robust quantitative finding of this study, along with the comparison of VA and VV patients.

Conversely, variable reporting or lack of stratification of other outcomes of interest, such as transfusion triggers, and ECMO indications (e.g., many cohorts had a mix of indications) and complications, limited the depth of interpretation behind predictors of red cell use, and the subgroup analyses we have performed are best viewed as associations worthy of further research.

4.3. Implications for Future Research

Future research into ECMO transfusion practice should ideally be prospective and multicentre, with standardisation of reporting blood product usage and outcomes such as hemorrhagic complications. Such studies are currently on the way for VA-ECMO (NCT03714048) and VV-ECMO (NCT03815773). Future interventional studies addressing modifiable factors such as transfusion triggers, equipment, cannulation strategies and anticoagulation would be a significant improvement on the current state of knowledge.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated a substantial transfusion requirement during ECMO and demonstrated significant heterogeneity of transfusion practice. The evidence is largely drawn from single-centre retrospective observational data, which limits interrogation of confounding factors influencing transfusion practice. The impact of mode, indication, equipment, and anticoagulation and transfusion triggers should be further investigated in prospective multicentre studies to better identify potentially harmful aspects of ECMO transfusion practice and generate hypotheses for the evaluation in future interventional trials for this resource-intensive therapy.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the ongoing help and support of Claire Reynolds and Sally Newman from the St Vincent’s Hospital Intensive Care Research Office.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/membranes11040251/s1. Table S1: Search strategy. Table S2: Newcastle-Ottawa scores.

Click here for additional data file. (311.5KB, pdf)

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, H.B. and P.N.; methodology, T.H.; validation, H.B., T.H. and D.Z.; formal analysis, T.H.; data curation, T.H. and H.B.; writing—original draft preparation, T.H.; writing—review and editing, H.B. and P.N.; visualisation, T.H.; supervision, H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Sy E., Sklar M.C., Lequier L., Fan E., Kanji H.D. Anticoagulation practices and the prevalence of major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Crit. Care. 2017;39:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.02.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sklar M.C., Sy E., Lequier L., Fan E., Kanji H.D. Anticoagulation practices during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure. A systematic review. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2016;13:2242–2250. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201605-364SR. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hebert P.C., Wells G., Blajchman M.A., Marshall J., Martin C., Pagliarello G., Tweeddale M., Schweitzer I., Yetisir E. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. transfusion requirements in critical care investigators, canadian critical care trials group. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999;340:409–417. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199902113400601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carson J.L., Stanworth S.J., Roubinian N., Fergusson D.A., Triulzi D., Doree C., Hebert P.C. Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016;10:Cd002042. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002042.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Wells G., Shea B., O’connell D., Peterson V., Welch M., Losos M., Tugwell P., Zello G.A., Robertson J. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) For Assessing The Quality Of Nonrandomised Studies In Meta-Analyses. [(accessed on 26 October 2020)]; Available online: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
  • 7.Wan X., Wang W., Liu J., Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014;14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Balduzzi S., Rucker G., Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evid. Based Ment. Health. 2019;22:153–160. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Anselmi A., Guinet P., Ruggieri V.G., Aymami M., Lelong B., Granry S., Malledant Y., Tulzo L.Y., Gueret P., Verhoye J.P., et al. Safety of recombinant factor VIIa in patients under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2016;49:78–84. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Buscher H., Vukomanovic A., Benzimra M., Okada K., Nair P. Blood and anticoagulation management in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for surgical and nonsurgical patients: A Single-Center retrospective review. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2016;31:869–875. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2016.10.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Czobor P., Venturini J.M., Parikh K.S., Retzer E.M., Friant J., Jeevanandam V., Russo M.J., Uriel N., Paul J.D., Blair J.E., et al. Sequential organ failure assessment score at presentation predicts survival in patients treated with percutaneous veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2016;28:133–138. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hryniewicz K., Sandoval Y., Samara M., Bennett M., Cabuay B., Chavez I.J., Seatter S., Eckman P., Zimbwa P., Dunn A., et al. Percutaneous venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock is associated with improved short-and long-term survival. ASAIO J. 2016;62:397–402. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000378. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krueger K., Schmutz A., Zieger B., Kalbhenn J. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with prophylactic subcutaneous anticoagulation only: An observational study in more than 60 patients. Artif. Organs. 2016;41:186–192. doi: 10.1111/aor.12737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mazzeffi M., Greenwood J., Tanaka K., Menaker J., Rector R., Herr D., Kon Z., Lee J., Griffith B., Rajagopal K., 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Opfermann P., Bevilacqua M., Fellim A., Mouhieddine M., Bachleda T., Pichler T., Hiesmayr M., Zuckermann A., Dworschak M., Steinlechner B. Prognostic impact of persistent thrombocytopenia during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a cohort of patients with left ventricular dysfunction after cardiac surgery. Crit. Care Med. 2016;44:e1208–e1218. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Pan K.C., McKenzie D.P., Pellegrino V., Murphy D., Butt W. The meaning of a high plasma free haemoglobin: Retrospective review of the prevalence of haemolysis and circuit thrombosis in an adult ECMO centre over 5 years. Perfusion. 2016;31:223–231. doi: 10.1177/0267659115595282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Staudacher D.L., Biever P.M., Benk C., Ahrens I., Bode C., Wengenmayer T. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) versus no antiplatelet therapy and incidence of major bleeding in patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0159973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tanaka D., Hirose H., Cavarocchi N., Entwistle J.W.C. The impact of vascular complications on survival of patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016;101:1729–1734. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.10.095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tauber H., Streif W., Fritz J., Ott H., Weigel G., Loacker L., Heinz A., Velik-Salchner C. Predicting transfusion requirements during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2016;30:692–701. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2016.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Trudzinski F.C., Minko P., Rapp D., Fähndrich S., Haake H., Haab M., Bohle R.M., Flaig M., Kaestner F., Bals R., et al. Runtime and aPTT predict venous thrombosis and thromboembolism in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective analysis. Ann. Intensive Care. 2016;6:66. doi: 10.1186/s13613-016-0172-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Agerstrand C.L., Burkart K.M., Abrams D.C., Bacchetta M.D., Brodie D. Blood conservation in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2015;99:590–595. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.08.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Esper S.A., Bermudez C., Dueweke E.J., Kormos R., Subramaniam K., Mulukutla S., Sappington P., Waters J., Khandhar S.J. Extracorporeal Membrane oxygenation support in acute coronary syndromes complicated by cardiogenic shock. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015;86:S45–S50. doi: 10.1002/ccd.25871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Halaweish I., Cole A., Cooley E., Lynch W.R., Haft J.W. Roller and centrifugal pumps: A retrospective comparison of bleeding complications in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2015;61:496–501. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marius H., Sommer W., Tudorache I., Avsar M., Siemeni T., Salman J., Puntigam J., Optenhoefel J., Greer M., Welte T., et al. Veno-veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure with severe haemodynamic impairment: Technique and early outcomes. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2015;20:761–767. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Lehle K., Philipp A., Zeman F., Lunz D., Lubnow M., Wendel H.-P., Göbölös L., Schmid C., Müller T. Technical-induced hemolysis in patients with respiratory failure supported with veno-venous ECMO—Prevalence and risk factors. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0143527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Li C.-L., Wang H., Jia M., Ma N., Meng X., Hou X.-T. The early dynamic behavior of lactate is linked to mortality in postcardiotomy patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: A retrospective observational study. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2015;149:1445–1450. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.11.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mohite P.N., Kaul S., Sabashnikov A., Rashid N., Fatullayev J., Zych B., Popov A.-F., Maunz O., Patil N.P., Garcia-Saez D., et al. Extracorporeal life support in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock: Keep them awake. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2015;20:755–760. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Omar H.R., Mirsaeidi M., Socias S., Sprenker C., Caldeira C., Camporesi E.M., Mangar D. Plasma free hemoglobin is an independent predictor of mortality among patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0124034. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Panigada M., L’Acqua C., Passamonti S.M., Mietto C., Protti A., Riva R., Gattinoni L. Comparison between clinical indicators of transmembrane oxygenator thrombosis and multidetector computed tomographic analysis. J. Crit. Care. 2015;30:441.e7–441.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Poss J., Kriechbaum S., Ewen S., Graf J., Hager I., Hennersdorf M., Petros S., Link A., Bohm M., Thiele H., et al. First-in-man analysis of the i-cor assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur. Heart J. Acute Cardiovasc. Care. 2015;4:475–481. doi: 10.1177/2048872614561481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.San Roman E., Venuti M.S., Ciarrocchi N.M., Fernandez Ceballos I., Gogniat E., Villarroel S., Carini F.C., Giannasi S.E. Implementation and results of a new ECMO program for lung transplantation and acute respiratory distress. Rev. Bras. Ter. Intensiva. 2015;27:134–140. doi: 10.5935/0103-507X.20150024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Voelker M.T., Busch T., Bercker S., Fichtner F., Kaisers U.X., Laudi S. Restrictive transfusion practice during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Artif. Organs. 2015;39:374–378. doi: 10.1111/aor.12385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wu S.-C., Chen W.T.-L., Lin H.-H., Fu C.-Y., Wang Y.-C., Lo H.-C., Cheng H.-T., Tzeng C.-W. Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe traumatic lung injury with respiratory failure. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2015;33:658–662. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Guirand D.M., Okoye O.T., Schmidt B.S., Mansfield N.J., Aden J.K., Martin R.S., Cestero R.F., Hines M.H., Pranikoff T., Inaba K., et al. Venovenous extracorporeal life support improves survival in adult trauma patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76:1275–1281. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Loforte A., Marinelli G., Musumeci F., Folesani G., Pilato E., Martin Suarez S., Montalto A., Lilla Della Monica P., Grigioni F., Frascaroli G., et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in refractory cardiogenic shock: Treatment strategies and analysis of risk factors. Artif. Organs. 2014;38:129–141. doi: 10.1111/aor.12317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.DaRocha T., Kosiński S., Jarosz A., Sobczyk D., Gałązkowski R., Piątek J., Konstany-Kalandyk J., Drwiła R. The chain of survival in hypothermic circulatory arrest: Encouraging preliminary results when using early identification, risk stratification and extracorporeal rewarming. Scand. J. Trauma Resusc. Emerg. Med. 2016;24:85. doi: 10.1186/s13049-016-0281-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shum H.-P., Kwan A.M.-C., Chan K.-C., Yan W.-W. The use of regional citrate anticoagulation continuous venovenous hemofiltration in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2014;60:413–418. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fagnoul D., Taccone F.S., Belhaj A., Rondelet B., Argacha J.-F., Vincent J.L., De Backer D. Extracorporeal life support associated with hypothermia and normoxemia in refractory cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2013;84:1519–1524. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.06.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Michaels A.J., Hill J.G., Bliss D., Sperley B.P., Young B.P., Quint P., Shanks T.R., Dalthorp J., Long W.B., Morgan L.J. Pandemic flu and the sudden demand for ECMO resources: A mature trauma program can provide surge capacity in acute critical care crises. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74:1493–1497. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31828d636e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mikus E., Tripodi A., Calvi S., Del Giglio M., Cavallucci A., Lamarra M. CentriMag venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support as treatment for patients with refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. ASAIO J. 2013;59:18–23. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0b013e3182768b68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pieri M., Turla O.G., Calabro M.G., Ruggeri L., Agracheva N., Zangrillo A., Pappalardo F. A new phosphorylcholine-coated polymethylpentene oxygenator for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A preliminary experience. Perfusion. 2013;28:132–137. doi: 10.1177/0267659112469642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Repesse X., Au S.M., Brechot N., Trouillet J.-L., Leprince P., Chastre J., Combes A., Luyt C.-E. Recombinant factor VIIa for uncontrollable bleeding in patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Report on 15 cases and literature review. Crit. Care. 2013;17:R55. doi: 10.1186/cc12581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Loforte A., Montalto A., Ranocchi F., Della Monica P.L., Casali G., Lappa A., Menichetti A., Contento C., Musumeci F. Peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system as salvage treatment of patients with refractory cardiogenic shock: Preliminary outcome evaluation. Artif. Organs. 2012;36:E53–E61. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01423.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Park M., Azevedo L.C., Mendes P.V., Carvalho C.R., Amato M.B., Schettino G.P., Tucci M., Maciel A.T., Taniguchi L.U., Barbosa E.V., et al. First-year experience of a Brazilian tertiary medical center in supporting severely ill patients using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Clinics. 2012;67:1157–1163. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2012(10)07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Garcia J.P., Kon Z.N., Evans C., Wu Z., Iacono A.T., McCormick B., Griffith B.P. Ambulatory veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Innovation and pitfalls. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2011;142:755–761. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.07.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Han S.J., Kim H.S., Kim K.I., Whang S.M., Hong K.S., Lee W.K., Lee S.H. Use of nafamostat mesilate as an anticoagulant during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2011;26:945–950. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.7.945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lamarche Y., Cheung A., Ignaszewski A., Higgins J., Kaan A., Griesdale D.E., Moss R. Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2011;142:60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.07.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Formica F., Avalli L., Colagrande L., Ferro O., Greco G., Maggioni E., Paolini G. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to support adult patients with cardiac failure: Predictive factors of 30-day mortality. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2010;10:721–726. doi: 10.1510/icvts.2009.220335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kanji H.D., Schulze C.J., Oreopoulos A., Lehr E.J., Wang W., MacArthur R.M. Peripheral versus central cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A comparison of limb ischemia and transfusion requirements. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2010;58:459–462. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1250005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Marasco S.F., Vale M., Pellegrino V., Preovolos A., Leet A., Kras A., Schulberg E., Bergin P., Esmore D.S. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in primary graft failure after heart transplantation. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2010;90:1541–1546. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.05.066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Rastan A.J., Dege A., Mohr M., Doll N., Falk V., Walther T., Mohr F.W. Early and late outcomes of 517 consecutive adult patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2010;139:302–311.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.10.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ang A.L., Teo D., Lim C.H., Leou K.K., Tien S.L., Koh M.B.C. Blood transfusion requirements and independent predictors of increased transfusion requirements among adult patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - a single centre experience. Vox Sang. 2009;96:34–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2008.01110.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Davies A., Jones D., Bailey M., Beca J., Bellomo R., Blackwell N., Forrest P., Gattas D., Granger E., Herkes R., et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for 2009 influenza A(H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2009;302:1888–1895. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Müller T., Philipp A., Luchner A., Karagiannidis C., Bein T., Hilker M., Rupprecht L., Langgartner J., Zimmermann M., Arlt M., et al. A new miniaturized system for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult respiratory failure. Crit. Care. 2009;13:R205. doi: 10.1186/cc8213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Bakhtiary F., Keller H., Dogan S., Dzemali O., Oezaslan F., Meininger D., Ackermann H., Zwissler B., Kleine P., Moritz A. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: Clinical experiences in 45 adult patients. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2008;135:382–388. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dietl C.A., Wernly J.A., Pett S.B., Yassin S.F., Sterling J.P., Dragan R., Milligan K., Crowley M.R. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support improves survival of patients with severe Hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2008;135:579–584. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.11.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Frenckner B., Palmér P., Lindén V. Extracorporeal respiratory support and minimally invasive ventilation in severe ARDS. Minerva Anestesiol. 2002;68:381–386. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Smith C., Bellomo R., Raman J.S., Matalanis G., Rosalion A., Buckmaster J., Hart G., Silvester W., Gutteridge G.A., Smith B., et al. An extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-based approach to cardiogenic shock in an older population. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2001;71:1421–1427. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(00)02504-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Lewandowski K., Rossaint R., Pappert D., Gerlach H., Slama K.-J., Weidemann H., Frey D.J.M., Hoffmann O., Keske U., Falke K.J. High survival rate in 122 ARDS patients managed according to a clinical algorithm including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Intensiv. Care Med. 1997;23:819–835. doi: 10.1007/s001340050418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Peek G.J., Moore H.M., Moore N., Sosnowski A.W., Firmin R.K. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for adult respiratory failure. Chest. 1997;112:759–764. doi: 10.1378/chest.112.3.759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Butch S.H., Knafl P., Oberman H.A., Bartlett R.H. Blood utilization in adult patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenated therapy. Transfusion. 1996;36:61–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1537-2995.1996.36196190517.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Muehrcke D.D., McCarthy P.M., Stewart R.W., Foster R.C., Ogella D.A., Borsh J.A., Cosgrove D.M., 3rd Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1996;61:684–691. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(95)01042-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Winkler A., Brogan T., Lequier L., Lorusso R. Extracorporeal Life Support: ELSO Red Book. ELSO—Extracorporeal Life Support Organization; Ann Arbor, MI, USA: 2018. Transfusion management during extracorporeal support. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Guimbretière G., Anselmi A., Roisne A., Lelong B., Corbineau H., Langanay T., Flécher E., Verhoye J.-P. Prognostic impact of blood product transfusion in VA and VV ECMO. Perfusion. 2019;34:246–253. doi: 10.1177/0267659118814690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mariscalco G., Salsano A., Fiore A., Dalén M., Ruggieri V.G., Saeed D., Jónsson K., Gatti G., Zipfel S., Dell’Aquila A.M., et al. Peripheral versus central extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy shock: Multicenter registry, systematic review, and meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2020;160:1207–1216.e44. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.10.078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Jäämaa-Holmberg S., Salmela B., Suojaranta R., Jokinen J.J., Lemström K.B., Lommi J. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock: Patient survival and health-related quality of life. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2018;55:780–787. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Aubron C., Depuydt J., Belon F., Bailey M., Schmidt M., Sheldrake J., Murphy D., Scheinkestel C., Cooper D.J., Capellier G., et al. Predictive factors of bleeding events in adults undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann. Intensiv. Care. 2016;6:97. doi: 10.1186/s13613-016-0196-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Paone G., Likosky D.S., Brewer R., Theurer P.F., Bell G.F., Cogan C.M., Prager R.L. Transfusion of 1 and 2 units of red blood cells is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2014;97:87–94. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Khoshbin E., Roberts N., Harvey C., Machin D., Killer H., Peek G.J., Sosnowski A.W., Firmin R.K. Poly-Methyl pentene oxygenators have improved gas exchange capability and reduced transfusion requirements in adult extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2005;51:281–287. doi: 10.1097/01.MAT.0000159741.33681.F1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Cahill C.M., Blumberg N., Schmidt A.E., Knight P.A., Melvin A.L., Massey H.T., Delehanty J.M., Zebrak S.B., Refaai M.A. Implementation of a standardized transfusion protocol for cardiac patients treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is associated with decreased blood component utilization and may improve clinical outcome. Anesth. Analg. 2018;126:1262–1267. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002238. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.De Bruin S., Scheeren T.W.L., Bakker J., van Bruggen R., Vlaar A.P.J. Transfusion practice in the non-bleeding critically ill: An international online survey-the TRACE survey. Crit. Care. 2019;23:309. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2591-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Martucci G., Grasselli G., Tanaka K., Tuzzolino F., Panarello G., Schmidt M., Bellani G., Arcadipane A. hemoglobin trigger and approach to red blood cell transfusions during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: The international TRAIN-ECMO survey. Perfusion. 2019;34:39–48. doi: 10.1177/0267659119830526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Holst L.B., Haase N., Wetterslev J., Wernerman J., Guttormsen A.B., Karlsson S., Johansson P.I., Åneman A., Vang M.L., Winding R., et al. Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;371:1381–1391. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1406617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Villanueva C., Colomo A., Bosch A., Concepción M., Hernandez-Gea V., Aracil C., Graupera I., Poca M., Alvarez-Urturi C., Gordillo J., et al. Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013;368:11–21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1211801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Mazer C.D., Whitlock R.P., Fergusson D.A., Hall J., Belley-Cote E., Connolly K., Khanykin B., Gregory A.J., De Médicis É., McGuinness S., et al. Restrictive or liberal red-cell transfusion for cardiac surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;377:2133–2144. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1711818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Lamarche Y., Chow B., Bédard A., Johal N., Kaan A., Humphries K.H., Cheung A. Thromboembolic events in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation without anticoagulation. Innov. Technol. Tech. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Surg. 2010;5:424–429. doi: 10.1177/155698451000500608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wood K.L., Ayers B., Gosev I., Kumar N., Melvin A.L., Barrus B., Prasad S. Venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation without routine systemic anticoagulation decreases adverse events. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2020;109:1458–1466. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.08.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Carter K.T., Kutcher M.E., Shake J.G., Panos A.L., Cochran R.P., Creswell L.L., Copeland H. Heparin-sparing anticoagulation strategies are viable options for patients on veno-venous ECMO. J. Surg. Res. 2019;243:399–409. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Mehran R., Rao S.V., Bhatt D.L., Gibson C.M., Caixeta A., Eikelboom J., Kaul S., Wiviott S.D., Menon V., Nikolsky E., et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: A consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation. 2011;123:2736–2747. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.009449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Click here for additional data file. (311.5KB, pdf)

Articles from Membranes are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES