Skip to main content

Beta-blockers in refractory hypoxemia on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a double-edged sword

Matters Arising to this article was published on 25 April 2024

Up to 10% of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) suffer from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) [1]. Severe respiratory failure can result in refractory hypoxemia, characterized by diminished arterial oxygen content and subsequent tissue hypoxia [2]. To address hypoxia, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) can be employed, delivering up to 6–7 L per minute of fully oxygenated blood to the venous circulation [2, 3].

Despite V-V ECMO, persistent hypoxemia may occur [4]. The primary cause of hypoxemia is often limited pump preload, leading to reduced ECMO circuit blood flow (QECMO) [5]. If hypoxemia persists despite increased QECMO, adequate hemoglobin levels, and minimized recirculation have to be ensured. If all these rescue maneuvers failed, some reports propose the utilization of beta-blockers for refractory hypoxemia despite adequate QECMO [4, 6, 7]. However, physiologically, this approach might yield counterintuitive effects as beta-blockers can decrease tissue oxygenation despite raising arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2).

We aim to emphasize potential risks associated with using beta-blockers for refractory hypoxemia during V-V ECMO. To begin, the oxygen content in the arterial blood can be estimated by the following formula [8]: arterial oxygen content (CaO2) = (SaO2 × Hb × 1.34) + (PaO2 × 0.003), where CaO2 represents the arterial oxygen content [mL/dL], SaO2 represents the arterial oxygen saturation [%], Hb represents the concentration of hemoglobin [g/dL], PaO2 represents the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood [mmHg] and 0.003 is a constant that accounts for the small amount of oxygen dissolved in the plasma. The oxygen present in arterial blood is subsequently conveyed to the tissues by the circulation.

Arterial oxygen delivery (DO2) can be therefore estimated by the following formula: DO2 = CaO2 × CO, where CO [L/min] represents cardiac output (CO). DO2 can therefore be improved by increasing either SaO2, hemoglobin levels, or CO. In V-V ECMO, oxygenated blood from the ECMO mixes with deoxygenated blood from the venous circulation thereby increasing SaO2. In most patients with pulmonary failure, QECMO is lower than CO, still providing arterial oxygen saturation up to 100%. Maintaining QECMO/CO > 0.6 is one of the objectives of physicians as it seems to be associated with adequate oxygenation on V-V ECMO [9]. In hyperdynamic circulatory states such as sepsis, CO significantly surpasses maximum QECMO. When QECMO/CO is < 0.6, too much-deoxygenated blood from the circulation mixes with the oxygenated blood returned from the ECMO, resulting in a decrease in SaO2. Therefore, the QECMO/CO ratio is of paramount importance to properly oxygenate arterial blood. In the rare scenario of QECMO/CO < 0.6 at maximum QECMO, decreasing CO to increase the QECMO/CO ratio might appeal as a viable therapeutic target.

Some studies have shown an increase in SaO2 by beta-blocker therapy in severely hypoxemic ECMO patients [6, 7]. However, reducing CO by beta-blocker therapy will increase SaO2 at the cost of a reduction in DO2. Since tissue oxygenation ultimately depends on DO2, beta-blocker therapy can aggravate tissue hypoxia, see Fig. 1a. We tested this hypothesis in three mildly hypoxic patients in our ICU using continuous metoprolol infusion (dose 8.7 ± 1.2 mg/h). The average age was 45.5 ± 5.2 years, and the indication for V-V ECMO was ARDS in all patients. QECMO and QECMO/CO ratio at baseline were 4.3 ± 0.5 l/min and 0.5 ± 0.1, respectively. Beta-blockers increased the QECMO/CO ratio (0.7 ± 0.1) at the cost of a decrease of CO but also importantly DO2, see Fig. 1b.

Fig. 1
figure 1

A Schematic representation of ECMO flow and cardiac output. Red indicates V-V ECMO flow, and blue indicates cardiac output. For illustrative purposes, recirculation is neglected; a Patient with ARDS and V-V ECMO support. The QECMO/CO ratio is 0.67, with saturation at 100%. DO2 is 500 ml/min. b The same patient with increased oxygen demand, for example, due to infection and fever. QECMO remains the same while CO is increased. This results in a ratio of 0.40, saturation of 85%, but a significantly increased DO2 of 850 ml/min. c Patient with increased oxygen demand treated with beta-blocker. The higher QECMO/CO ratio improved arterial oxygen saturation, but the DO2 drops to 665 ml/min. B Displays three ARDS patients undergoing V-V ECMO therapy, in whom beta-blockers were titrated based on their effects. The measurements were taken three times each after reaching a steady state

DO2, oxygen extraction and anaerobic glycolysis (increasing lactate levels) should be monitored closely when beta-blockers are used for refractory hypoxemia on V-V ECMO. Beta-blockers might only be advisable in situations where cardiac output is increased inadequately and not driven by oxygen demand. Targeting mild hypothermia, analgesic treatment, and increased sedative are some examples of simple measures that should be done as first-line treatment to improve QECMO/CO ratio. Beta-blockers should be regarded as therapy for very rare cases, considered only when an increased CO secondary to an increased oxygen demand is excluded.

Availability of data and materials

On request available.


CaO2 :

Arterial oxygen content


Cardiac output

DO2 :

Oxygen delivery


Hemoglobin (g/dL)

PaO2 :

Partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood [mmHg]


Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation blood flow

SaO2 :

Arterial oxygen saturation


Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation


  1. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Fan E, Brochard L, Esteban A, Gattinoni L, van Haren F, Larsson A, McAuley DF, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315(8):788–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grotberg JC, Reynolds D, Kraft BD. Management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a primer. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ramanathan K, Shekar K, Ling RR, Barbaro RP, Wong SN, Tan CS, Rochwerg B, Fernando SM, Takeda S, MacLaren G, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Levy B, Taccone FS, Guarracino F. Recent developments in the management of persistent hypoxemia under veno-venous ECMO. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(3):508–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zakhary B, Vercaemst L, Mason P, Lorusso R, Brodie D. How I manage drainage insufficiency on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):151.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bunge JJH, Diaby S, Valle AL, Bakker J, Gommers D, Vincent JL, Creteur J, Taccone FS, Reis Miranda D. Safety and efficacy of beta-blockers to improve oxygenation in patients on veno-venous ECMO. J Crit Care. 2019;53:248–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guarracino F, Zangrillo A, Ruggeri L, Pieri M, Calabrò MG, Landoni G, Stefani M, Doroni L, Pappalardo F. β-Blockers to optimize peripheral oxygenation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a case series. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26(1):58–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Broaddus VC, Ernst JD, King Jr TE, Lazarus SC, Sarmiento K, Schnapp L, Stapleton RD, Gotway MB: Murray & Nadel's textbook of respiratory medicine: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2021.

  9. Schmidt M, Tachon G, Devilliers C, Muller G, Hekimian G, Bréchot N, Merceron S, Luyt CE, Trouillet JL, Chastre J, et al. Blood oxygenation and decarboxylation determinants during venovenous ECMO for respiratory failure in adults. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(5):838–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references




Publications charges are partly covered by the DFG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Concept/design: TW, MS; data analysis/interpretation: DLS, TW; drafting figures: DLS, TW; drafting article: DLS, TW, MS: critical revision of article: DLS, TW, MS; all authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dawid L. Staudacher.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The ethics commission of the university of Freiburg approved the current research (EK-Freiburg file number 151/14).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Staudacher, D.L., Wengenmayer, T. & Schmidt, M. Beta-blockers in refractory hypoxemia on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a double-edged sword. Crit Care 27, 360 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: