A consensus of international experts on definition, sampling, treatment, and prevention of peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannula-site infection obtained by the Delphi method: the SAVECMO study

Intensive Care Medicine | Published: 08 January 2026

Background

Nosocomial infections are common in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with ECMO cannula-site infections (ECMO-CSI) being the most frequent infections directly related to the ECMO run. These infections can significantly impact patient outcomes. Currently, no adult guidelines exist for the prevention, diagnosis, and/or treatment of peripheral ECMO-CSI, resulting in heterogeneity in both clinical practice and research findings.

Methods

We conducted a Delphi study involving 39 international experts in ECMO management. The experts participated in four Delphi rounds to reach consensus on various aspects of ECMO-CSI complicating peripheral ECMO (central ECMO excluded), including definition, clinical suspicion, diagnostic methods, preventive measures, and treatment. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement among experts on each proposed item.

Results

The Delphi process established consensus on key aspects of ECMO-CSI. Experts agreed on clinical scenarios that warrant suspicion of ECMO-CSI, such as purulent discharge and local inflammatory signs. Standardized sampling techniques, including swabs and purulent drainage aspiration, were recommended, while others were rejected. Definitions were clarified, specifying that ECMO-CSI is defined by the isolation of a pathogen through local microbiological sampling and the presence of purulent discharge or local inflammatory signs. Among the preventive measures, the use of chlorhexidine-impregnated or semipermeable polyurethane dressings, unchanged for 7 days unless soiled or bleeding, was recommended, whereas systematic antibiotic prophylaxis, even for surgical ECMO, was not recommended.

Conclusion

This study presents an international expert consensus focusing on peripheral ECMO-CSI, providing a standardized framework to improve clinical management and facilitate future research. The consensus aims to enhance patient outcomes and support evidence-based guidelines in this complex field.

Critical Care Bulletin: June 2023

 

Definitions of massive transfusion in adults with critical bleeding: a systematic review

 

by Victor S. Lin, Emily Sun, Serine Yau, Chathuri Abeyakoon, Georgia Seamer, Simran Bhopal, Harriet Tucker, Carolyn Doree, Susan J. Brunskill, Zoe K. McQuilten, Simon J. Stanworth, Erica M. Wood and Laura Green 

 

Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 265 Published: 05 July 2023

 

Background

Definitions for massive transfusion (MT) vary widely between studies, contributing to challenges in interpretation of research findings and practice evaluation. In this first systematic review, we aimed to identify all MT definitions used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to date to inform the development of consensus definitions for MT.

Methods

We systematically searched the following databases for RCTs from inception until 11 August 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Transfusion Evidence Library. Ongoing trials were sought from CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to fulfil all the following three criteria: (1) be an RCT; (2) include an adult patient population with major bleeding who had received, or were anticipated to receive, an MT in any clinical setting; and (3) specify a definition for MT as an inclusion criterion or outcome measure.

Results

Of the 8,458 distinct references identified, 30 trials were included for analysis (19 published, 11 ongoing). Trauma was the most common clinical setting in published trials, while for ongoing trials, it was obstetrics. A total of 15 different definitions of MT were identified across published and ongoing trials, varying greatly in cut-offs for volume transfused and time period. Almost all definitions specified the number of red blood cells (RBCs) within a set time period, with none including plasma, platelets or other haemostatic agents that are part of contemporary transfusion resuscitation. For completed trials, the most commonly used definition was transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units in 24 h (9/19, all in trauma), while for ongoing trials it was 3–5 RBC units (n = 7), with the timing for transfusion being poorly defined, or in some trials not provided at all (n = 5).

Conclusions

Transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units within 24 h was the most commonly used definition in published RCTs, while lower RBC volumes are being used in ongoing RCTs. Any consensus definitions should reflect the need to incorporate different blood components/products for MT and agree on whether a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach should be used across different clinical settings.

 

Heterogeneity in the definition of delirium in ICUs and association with the intervention effect in randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

 

by Lucie Collet, Aymeric Lanore, Camille Alaterre, Jean-Michel Constantin, Guillaume L. Martin, Agnès Caille, Arthur James and Agnès Dechartres 

 

Critical Care volume 27, Article number: 170 (2023)

 

Purpose

To evaluate the heterogeneity in the definition of delirium in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses of delirium in intensive care units (ICUs) and to explore whether intervention effect depends on the definition used.

Methods

We searched PubMed for meta-analyses including RCTs evaluating prevention or treatment strategies of delirium in ICU. The definition of delirium was collected from RCTs and classified as validated (DSM criteria, CAM-ICU, ICDSC, NEECHAM, DRS-R98) or non-validated (non-validated scales, set of symptoms, physician appreciation or not reported). We conducted a meta-epidemiological analysis to compare intervention effects between trials using or not a validated definition by a two-step method as primary analysis and a multilevel model as secondary analysis. A ratio of odds ratios (ROR) < 1 indicated larger intervention effects in trials using a non-validated definition.

Results

Of 149 RCTs (41 meta-analyses), 109 (73.1%) used a validated definition and 40 (26.8%) did not (including 31 [20.8%] not reporting the definition). The primary analysis of 7 meta-analyses (30 RCTs) found no significant difference in intervention effects between trials using a validated definition and the others (ROR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.27–1.08), whereas the secondary multilevel analysis including 12 meta-analyses (67 RCTs) found significantly larger effects for trials using a non-validated versus a validated definition (ROR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.21–0.62).

Conclusion

The definition of delirium was heterogeneous across RCTs, with one-fifth not reporting how they evaluated delirium. We did not find a significant association with intervention effect in the primary analysis. The secondary analysis including more studies revealed significantly larger intervention effects in trials using a non-validated versus a validated definition.