Hellenic journal of cardiology : HJC = Hellenike kardiologike epitheorese · 2020
Patients treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have different baseline risk and outcomes dependent on indication and route of cannulation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kosmopoulos Marinos, Bartos Jason A, Kalra Rajat, Goslar Tomaz, Carlson Claire, Shaffer Andrew, John Ranjit, Kelly Rose, Raveendran Ganesh, Brunsvold Melissa, Chipman Jeffrey, Beilman Gregory, Yannopoulos Demetris
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the baseline risk of patients treated with Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in relation to cannulation strategy and indication for ECMO as well as the relation of cannulation strategy with survival and secondary hospitalization outcomes.
METHODS: Severity of illness and predicted mortality risk were assessed in 317 patients. Central cannulation was used in 52 patients unable to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass after cardiac surgery. Peripheral cannulation was used in 179 patients for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) and in 86 patients who received ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS).
RESULTS: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were significantly worse (P < 0.01) for peripheral ECMO eCPR (23.2) vs central ECMO (14.6) and vs peripheral ECMO for RCS (18.9). Survival After Venoarterial ECMO (SAVE) scores were significantly worse for peripheral ECMO for eCPR (-7.85) and RCS (-10.38) vs central ECMO (-3.97), and P < 0.01. Peripherally cannulated patients had significantly worse renal function. No significant difference existed for survival to discharge (peripheral ECMO for eCPR, 31%; central ECMO, 44%; peripheral ECMO for refractory cardiac shock, 39.5%; and P = 0.176), although centrally cannulated patients had significantly longer treatment durations compared with peripheral ECMO for eCPR.
CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally cannulated patients with eCPR had significantly worse APACHE II and SAVE scores compared to peripherally cannulated RCS or patients with central ECMO, despite having similar mortality.
METHODS: Severity of illness and predicted mortality risk were assessed in 317 patients. Central cannulation was used in 52 patients unable to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass after cardiac surgery. Peripheral cannulation was used in 179 patients for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) and in 86 patients who received ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS).
RESULTS: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were significantly worse (P < 0.01) for peripheral ECMO eCPR (23.2) vs central ECMO (14.6) and vs peripheral ECMO for RCS (18.9). Survival After Venoarterial ECMO (SAVE) scores were significantly worse for peripheral ECMO for eCPR (-7.85) and RCS (-10.38) vs central ECMO (-3.97), and P < 0.01. Peripherally cannulated patients had significantly worse renal function. No significant difference existed for survival to discharge (peripheral ECMO for eCPR, 31%; central ECMO, 44%; peripheral ECMO for refractory cardiac shock, 39.5%; and P = 0.176), although centrally cannulated patients had significantly longer treatment durations compared with peripheral ECMO for eCPR.
CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally cannulated patients with eCPR had significantly worse APACHE II and SAVE scores compared to peripherally cannulated RCS or patients with central ECMO, despite having similar mortality.