Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Intractable Pulmonary Insufficiency: Practical Issues and Future Directions

Table 1

Randomized or propensity matched studies with vv-ECMO.

Year, author	Study type	Method	Inclusion	ECMO indications		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 (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) ( 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) ( 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) ()