G Hermans1, W Meersseman, A Wilmer, B Meyns, H Bobbaers. 1. Medical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Greet.Hermans@uz.kuleuven.ac.be
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology that can provide extracorporeal gas exchange to patients with severe pulmonary or cardiac dysfunction. We report on our clinical experience with ECMO in critically ill patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 23 patients treated with ECMO in a medical intensive care unit in a tertiary referral academic centre. RESULTS: 13 patients were considered immunocompetent and 10 were immunocompromised when extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was started. 16 patients presented with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 2 patients had intractable cardiac failure, and 5 patients had combined respiratory and cardiac failure. In 16 patients, a veno-venous bypass was constructed; in 7 patients, the initial bypass was venoarterial. 11 patients survived. In 2 patients technical complications were fatal. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that patients with community-acquired pneumonia and no underlying disease will benefit most from this technique. However, long-term survival is possible in immunocompromised patients. Venoarterial bypass can carry a higher risk for technical complications. Increasing experience apparently also reduces the risk of technical complications.
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology that can provide extracorporeal gas exchange to patients with severe pulmonary or cardiac dysfunction. We report on our clinical experience with ECMO in critically illpatients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 23 patients treated with ECMO in a medical intensive care unit in a tertiary referral academic centre. RESULTS: 13 patients were considered immunocompetent and 10 were immunocompromised when extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was started. 16 patients presented with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), 2 patients had intractable cardiac failure, and 5 patients had combined respiratory and cardiac failure. In 16 patients, a veno-venous bypass was constructed; in 7 patients, the initial bypass was venoarterial. 11 patients survived. In 2 patients technical complications were fatal. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that patients with community-acquired pneumonia and no underlying disease will benefit most from this technique. However, long-term survival is possible in immunocompromised patients. Venoarterial bypass can carry a higher risk for technical complications. Increasing experience apparently also reduces the risk of technical complications.