Correction to: Retrospective ANalysis of multi-drug resistant Gram-nEgative bacteRia on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The multicenter RANGER STUDY (Critical Care, (2024), 28, 1, (279), 10.1186/s13054-024-05068-x)

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in Tables 1–4. There were values missing in Table 3 and alignment/indention errors in Tables 1–4. Both the incorrect and correct tables are given hereafter. The incorrect Table 1: (Table presented.) Patients’ characteristics at V–V ECMO connection Overall population (N = 279, 100%) Predetected patients (1) (N = 59, 21%) V-V ECMO-acquired MDR GN (2) (N = 80, 29%) Non-MDR GN (3) (N = 140, 50%) Age, years 54 [44–61] 49 [38–58] 56 [46–62] 55 [46–62] 0.046b Gender (male), n (%) 200 (72) 35 (59) 64 (80) 101 (72) 0.028c IBW, Kg 65 ± 8 64 ± 10 66 ± 7 65 ± 9 0.734 Charlson Comorbidity Index (w/o age) 1 [0–2] 1 [0–2] 1 [0–1] 1 [0–2] 0.350 at ICU admission 8 [6–11] 8 [6–12] 8 [7–10] 8 [5–12] 0.732 at V-V ECMO connection 9 [7–12] 10 [8–14] 9 [7–11] 8 [6–12] 0.057 IMV prior to V-V ECMO connection, days 2 [1–5] 2 [0–6] 3 [1–6] 2 [1–5] 0.067 Driving pressure at V-V ECMO initiation, cmH2O 16 [10–17] 15 [10–16] 15 [9–16] 15 [10–17] 0.140 PaO2/FiO2 ratio at V-V ECMO initiation 87 [67–118] 77 [59–106] 85 [72–110] 96 [79–120] 0.064 Time between H admission and V-V ECMO connection, days 4 [2–8] 4 [2–10] 4 [2–8] 4 [2–8] 0.983 Time between ICU admission and V-V ECMO connection, days 1 [0–3] 1 [0–3] 1 [0–4] 0 [0–3] 0.019d Acute respiratory distress syndrome, n (%) 233 (84) 50 (85) 66 (82) 117842316 0.939 Trauma, major burn, autoimmune disease, CLAD, n (%) 46 (16) 9 (15) 14 (18) Interfacility transport on V-V ECMO, n (%) 79 (28) 9 (15) 33 (41) 37 (26) 0.003e 2017–2019 101 (36) 16 (27) 16 (20) 69497151 < 0.001f 2020–2022 178 (64) 43 (73) 64 (80) Annual hospital V-V ECMO volumea, n 12 [10–20] 12 [6–12] 10 [7–20] 12 [10–22] < 0.001 g Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) or as median and [interquartile range] or as mean ± SD. 'Predetected' group includes patients, infected or colonized, by MDR GN bacteria cultured before VV-ECMO placement aAnnual hospital V-V ECMO volume is defined as the specific number of patients treated with V-V ECMO per year [27] b(1) vs (2) p-value 0.041, (1) vs (3) p-value 0.017 c(1) vs (2) p-value 0.013 d(2) vs (3) p-value 0.011 e(1) vs (2) p-value 0.001, (2) vs (3) p-value 0.025 f(1) vs (3) p-value 0.005, (2) vs (3) p-value < 0.001 g(1) vs (3) and (2) vs (3) p-values < 0.001 ICU Intensive Care Unit; IMV Invasive mechanical ventilation; IBW Ideal body weight; ECMO Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; SD Standard deviation; w/o Without; V-V Veno-venous; CLAD Chronic lung allograft dysfunction; PaO2/FiO2 The ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen < 0.001f referes to both lines (2017-19 and 2020-2022) The correct Table 1: (Table presented.) Patients’ characteristics at V-V ECMO connection. The bold font was used for significant p-values. Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) or as median and [interquartile range] or as mean ± SD. 'Predetected' group includes patients, infected or colonized, by MDR GN bacteria cultured before VV-ECMO placement. aAnnual hospital V-V ECMO volume is defined as the specific number of patients treated with V-V ECMO per year [27] b(1) vs (2) p-value 0.041, (1) vs (3) p-value 0.017 c(1) vs (2) p-value 0.013 d(2) vs (3) p-value 0.011 e(1) vs (2) p-value 0.001, (2) vs (3) p-value 0.025 f(1) vs (3) p-value 0.005, (2) vs (3) p-value < 0.001 g(1) vs (3) and (2) vs (3) p-values < 0.001 ICU Intensive Care Unit; IMV Invasive mechanical ventilation; IBW Ideal body weight; ECMO Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; SD Standard deviation; w/o Without; V-V Veno-venous; CLAD Chronic lung allograft dysfunction; PaO2/FiO2 The ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen < 0.001f referes to both lines (2017-19 and 2020-2022) The incorrect Table 2: (Table presented.) Outcomes Overall population (N = 279, 100%) Predetected patients (1) (N = 59, 21%) V-V ECMO-acquired MDR GN (2) (N = 80, 29%) Non-MDR GN (3) (N = 140, 50%) 1-year mortality, n (%) 116 (42) 36 (61) 35 (44) 45 (32) < 0.001a infections due to MDR GN bacteria, n (%) – 33 (56)* 29 (36) – colonizations due to MDR GN bacteria colonization, n (%) – 3 (5) 6 (8) – Overall V-V ECMO duration, days 12 [8–22] 13 [7–28] 16 [12–26, 28] 11 [6–17] < 0.001b 28-day ventilator-free days 0 [0–8] 0 [0–4] 0 [0–2] 0 [0–12] < 0.001c Weaning success, n (%) 95 (34) 17 (29) 14 (18) 644550362619 < 0.001d Weaning failure, n (%) 119 (43) 22 (37) 47 (59) Never extubated, n (%) 65 (23) 20 (34) 19 (24) RRT after V-V ECMO connection, n (%) 99 (35) 25 (42) 30 (38) 44 (31) 0.306 ICU LOS, days 27 [18–43] 22 [15–37] 39 [26–57] 24 [17–35] < 0.001e Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) or as median and [interquartile range] *Of those non-survivors, 10 subjects were pre-infected by MDR GN bacteria at V-V ECMO initiation a(1) vs (3) p value < 0.001 b(1) vs (2) p value < 0.001, (1) vs (3) p value 0.043, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 c(1) vs (3) p value 0.005, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 d(1) vs (2) p value 0.042, (1) vs (3) 0.028, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 e(1) vs (2) p value < 0.001, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 ICU Intensive Care Unit; RRT Renal replacement therapy; IMV Invasive mechanical ventilation; ECMO Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; V-V Veno-venous < 0.001a referes only to the first line (1-year mortality, n (%) The correct Table 2: (Table presented.) Outcomes. The bold font was used for significant p-values. Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) or as median and [interquartile range] *Of those non-survivors, 10 subjects were pre-infected by MDR GN bacteria at V-V ECMO initiation a(1) vs (3) p value < 0.001 b(1) vs (2) p value < 0.001, (1) vs (3) p value 0.043, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 c(1) vs (3) p value 0.005, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 d(1) vs (2) p value 0.042, (1) vs (3) 0.028, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 e(1) vs (2) p value < 0.001, (2) vs (3) p value < 0.001 ICU Intensive Care Unit; RRT Renal replacement therapy; IMV Invasive mechanical ventilation; ECMO Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; V-V Veno-venous < 0.001a referes only to the first line (1-year mortality, n (%) The incorrect Table 3: (Table presented.) Microbiological characteristics of MDR GN bacteria Predetected patients (N = 59, 100%) V-V ECMO-acquired MDR GN (N = 80, 100%) ESBL, AmpC, n (%) 10 (17) 15196581 0.960 CRE, CRAB, DTR, n (%) 49 (83) Infections due to MDR GN bacteria, n (%) 48 (81)a 61761924 0.535 Colonizations due to MDR GN bacteria, n (%) 11 (19) Type of infection due to MDR GN bacteriaa VAP/non-VAP, n (%) 38 (64) 0.699 BSI/CR-BSI, n (%) 4 (7)b UTI, n (%) 0 (0) Others (i.e., soft tissue etc.), n (%) 6 (10) Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) aOf those patients, only 10 subjects were pre-infected by MDR GN bacteria at V-V ECMO initiation b1 CR-BSI; c: 2 CR-BSI. Additional information is reported in Fig. 1. For more details about microbiological surveillance and diagnostic criteria see Methods and additional-Methods 1 ECMO extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; ESBL Extended spectrum beta-lactamase; V-V Veno-venous; AmpC AmpC β-lactamase-producing; CRE Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; DTR Difficult-to-treat resistance (mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa); CRAB Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; BSI Blood stream infection; VAP Ventilator-associated pneumonia; CR-BSI Catheter-related bloodstream infection; UTI Urinary tract infection 0.960 referes to the first (ESBL, AmpC) and second line (CRE, CRAB, DTR) The correct Table 3: (Table presented.) Microbiological characteristics of MDR GN bacteria. Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) aOf those patients, only 10 subjects were pre-infected by MDR GN bacteria at V-V ECMO initiation b1 CR-BSI c: 2 CR-BSI. Additional information is reported in Fig. 1. For more details about microbiological surveillance and diagnostic criteria see Methods and additional-Methods 1 ECMO extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; ESBL Extended spectrum beta-lactamase; V-V Veno-venous; AmpC AmpC β-lactamase-producing; CRE Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae; DTR Difficult-to-treat resistance (mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa); CRAB Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii; BSI Blood stream infection; VAP Ventilator-associated pneumonia; CR-BSI Catheter-related bloodstream infection; UTI Urinary tract infection 0.960 referes to the first (ESBL, AmpC) and second line (CRE, CRAB, DTR) The incorrect Table 4: (Table presented.) Concomitant pathogens and antibiotics. Overall population (N = 279, 100%) Predetected patients (N = 59, 21%) V-V ECMO-acquired MDR GN (N = 80, 29%) Non-MDR GN* (N = 140, 50%) Sars-Cov-2, influenza virus, n (%) 157 (56) 34 (58) 40 (50) 83 (59) 0.399 Candida sp., n (%) 73 (26) 13 (22) 24 (30) 36 (26) 0.564 Aspergillus sp., n (%) 41 (15) 7 (12)c 17 (21)d 17 (12)e 0.146 Concomitant infections due to Gram-positive bacteriaa, n (%) 103 (37) 20 (34) 31 (39) 52 (37) 0.840 Resistance patternb (only Gram-positive bacteria) VRE, n (%) 29 (10) 8 (14) 10 (13) 1184633139 0.645 Multi-sensitive, n (%) 91 (33) 17 (29) 28 (35) Other resistances (i.e. LRE), n (%) 32 (11) 9 (15) 10 (13) Penicillins, β-lactam-inhibitor/III, IV cephalosporins or fluoroquinolones, n (%) 132 (47) 27 (46) 39 (49) 664744323021 0.915 Carbapenems, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, cefiderocol, etc., n (%) 82 (29) 17 (29) 21 (26) Only targeted therapy or nothing, n (%) 65 (24) 15 (25) 20 (25) Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) or as median and [interquartile range]. For more details about microbiological surveillance see Methods and additional-Methods 1 *Moreover, 39 (28%) subjects detected multisensitive GN bacteria and only 23 (16%) patients never recorded positive cultures afor more details concerning Gram-positive bacteria see additional-Table 6 bin case of multiple bacterial isolations, only the worst resistance pattern was counted c1 out of 7 patients isolated Candida sp. and Aspergillus sp. simultaneously d3 out of 17 patients isolated Candida sp. and Aspergillus sp. simultaneously e1 out of 7 patients isolated Candida sp. and Aspergillus sp. simultaneously ECMO Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; VRE Vanco-resistant enterococcus; LRE Linezolid-resistant enterococcus; V-V Veno-venous; sp Species The correct Table 4: (Table presented.) Concomitant pathogens and antibiotics. Data are presented as absolute frequency (% of the included patients) or as median and [interquartile range]. For more details about microbiological surveillance see Methods and additional-Methods 1. *Moreover, 39 (28%) subjects detected multisensitive GN bacteria and only 23 (16%) patients never recorded positive cultures. afor more details concerning Gram-positive bacteria see additional-Table 6. bin case of multiple bacterial isolations, only the worst resistance pattern was counted. c1 out of 7 patients isolated Candida sp. and Aspergillus sp. simultaneously. d3 out of 17 patients isolated Candida sp. and Aspergillus sp. simultaneously. e1 out of 7 patients isolated Candida sp. and Aspergillus sp. simultaneously. ECMO Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MDR Multidrug resistant; GN Gram-negative; N or n Number; VRE Vanco-resistant enterococcus; LRE Linezolid-resistant enterococcus; V-V Veno-venous; sp Species. Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been updated in this correction article and the original article [1] has been corrected.