PURPOSE: This study compared the respiratory status before and during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients receiving venovenous (VV) and venoarterial (VA) ECMO to evaluate the choice of ECMO in patients with respiratory failure. METHOD: Between January 2003 and December 2007, 16 patients with respiratory failure required ECMO. Venovenous bypass and VA bypass were used in 9 cases (VV group) and 7 cases (VA group), respectively. The respiratory status before and during ECMO was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The percentage of patients requiring renal replacement therapy prior to ECMO use was significantly higher in the VA group than in the VV group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in PaO(2)/FIO(2), AaDO(2), pulmonary compliance, and the lung injury score prior to ECMO use. These parameters gradually improved in both groups; however, no significant intergroup differences were seen for up to 96 h after ECMO introduction. There was also no significant difference between the two groups in ECMO removal rate (VV group: 56%, VA group: 43%). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that VV ECMO is comparable to VA ECMO, and can maintain sufficient respiratory support when VV ECMO is introduced to respiratory failure patients lacking evidence of renal and/or heart failure.
PURPOSE: This study compared the respiratory status before and during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients receiving venovenous (VV) and venoarterial (VA) ECMO to evaluate the choice of ECMO in patients with respiratory failure. METHOD: Between January 2003 and December 2007, 16 patients with respiratory failure required ECMO. Venovenous bypass and VA bypass were used in 9 cases (VV group) and 7 cases (VA group), respectively. The respiratory status before and during ECMO was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The percentage of patients requiring renal replacement therapy prior to ECMO use was significantly higher in the VA group than in the VV group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in PaO(2)/FIO(2), AaDO(2), pulmonary compliance, and the lung injury score prior to ECMO use. These parameters gradually improved in both groups; however, no significant intergroup differences were seen for up to 96 h after ECMO introduction. There was also no significant difference between the two groups in ECMO removal rate (VV group: 56%, VA group: 43%). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that VV ECMO is comparable to VA ECMO, and can maintain sufficient respiratory support when VV ECMO is introduced to respiratory failurepatients lacking evidence of renal and/or heart failure.
Authors: S Fukuda; M Aoyama; Y Yamada; N Saitoh; T Honjoh; T Hasegawa; M Futamura; J Katoh; N Niimi; S Tanaka; M Nagaya Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 1999 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Christian J Hunter; Arlin B Blood; John M Bishai; Adam D Hickerson; Debbie D Wall; Ricardo L Peverini; Gordon G Power; Andrew O Hopper Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: A H Morris; C J Wallace; R L Menlove; T P Clemmer; J F Orme; L K Weaver; N C Dean; F Thomas; T D East; N L Pace; M R Suchyta; E Beck; M Bombino; D F Sittig; S Böhm; B Hoffmann; H Becks; S Butler; J Pearl; B Rasmusson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roy G Brower; Paul N Lanken; Neil MacIntyre; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; Marek Ancukiewicz; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stefan Fischer; Desmond Bohn; Peter Rycus; Andrew F Pierre; Marc de Perrot; Thomas K Waddell; Shaf Keshavjee Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Neil Roberts; Claire Westrope; Suneel K Pooboni; Hussain Mulla; Giles J Peek; Andrew W Sosnowski; Richard K Firmin Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.872