Authors' recommendations: Study results are inconsistent and it appears that there is no clear mortality benefit with ECMO compared with mechanical ventilation or standard care without the use of ECMO in patients with acute respiratory failure. There appeared to be a statistically significant mortality benefit with venovenous ECMO, when only the three good-quality studies comparing venovenous ECMO with mechanical ventilation, were considered. Bleeding appeared to be statistically significantly higher with ECMO compared to mechanical ventilation. However, little information was available on other adverse events hence it is difficult to judge the risk/benefit ratio of ECMO use.One evidence-based guidance document recommended that for adults with acute respiratory failure undergoing ECMO, the procedure should be undertaken by clinical teams with specific training and expertise in the procedure. One evidence-based consensus conference report on acute respiratory distress syndrome recommended that initiating of ECMO must be based on a multidisciplinary decision making, weaning from ECMO should be determined based on daily checking of criteria indicative of recovery, and an intensive care unit conducting ECMO should have a team with specific skills.

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2014

URL for published report: http://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/htis/dec-2014/RC0616-ECMO-respiratory-Final.pdf

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Canada

Organisation Name: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health

Contact Address: 600-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1S 5S8 Canada. Tel: +1 613 226 2553; Fax: +1 613 226 5392;

Contact Name: requests@cadth.ca

Contact Email: requests@cadth.ca

Copyright: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)