Objective  We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the ECMO versus mechanical ventilation through a rapid health technology assessment. Methods  PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, complete economic evaluations, and CRD database for HTA reports from inception to December 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Descriptive analysis and summary were then performed. Results  A total of 21 references were involved, including 2 HTA reports, 5 RCTs, 11 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 3 economic evaluations. The quality of the literature evidence was heterogenous, and only 2 RCTs of high quality were included for meta-analysis. The results showed that the difference of 60-day mortality between ECMO and mechanical ventilation was statistically significant (RR=0.73, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.92, P=0.007). The majority of recent meta-analysis literature showed that short-term mortality of ECMO treatment was lower than that of mechanically ventilated patients. The cost-effective literature from different countries all showed that it was cost-effective in their respective health system, however, the quality of the literature varied. Conclusions  Current evidence shows that ECMO has better safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for ARDS compared with mechanical ventilation. However, it still required to be verified by high-quality studies with a long-term follow-up. Validate conclusions are needed through rigorous health technology assessments.

Citation： FAN Zhilei, YAN Juntao, CHEN Yingyao. ECMO for severe ARDS in adults: a rapid health technology assessment. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2021, 21(9): 1075-1081. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202103164 Copy