PURPOSE: Polymethylpentene membrane oxygenators used in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) differ in their physical characteristics. The aim of the study was to analyze the gas transfer capability of different ECMO systems in clinical practice, as the choice of the appropriate system may be influenced by the needs of the patient. METHODS: Retrospective study on prospectively collected data of adults with severe respiratory failure requiring vvECMO support (Regensburg ECMO Registry, 2009-2013). Oxygen (O2) transfer and carbon dioxide (CO2) elimination of four different ECMO systems (PLS system, n = 163; Cardiohelp system (CH), n = 59, Maquet Cardiopulmonary, Rastatt, Germany; Hilite 7000 LT system, n = 56, Medos Medizintechnik, Stolberg, Germany; ECC.05 system, n = 39, Sorin Group, Mirandola (MO), Italy) were analyzed. RESULTS: Gas transfer depended on type of ECMO system, blood flow, and gas flow (p ≤ 0.05, each). CO2 removal is dependent on sweep gas flow and blood flow, with higher blood flow and/or gas flow eliminating more CO2 (p ≤ 0.001). CO2 elimination capacity was highest with the PLS system (p ≤ 0.001). O2 transfer at blood flow rates below 3 l/min depended on blood flow, at higher blood flow rates on blood flow and gas flow. The system with the smallest gas exchange surface (ECC.05 system) was least effective in O2 transfer, but in terms of the gas exchange surface was the most effective. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that patients with severe hypoxemia and need for high flow ECMO benefit more from the PLS/CH or Hilite 7000 LT system. The ECC.05 system is advisable for patients with moderate hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia.
PURPOSE:Polymethylpentene membrane oxygenators used in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) differ in their physical characteristics. The aim of the study was to analyze the gas transfer capability of different ECMO systems in clinical practice, as the choice of the appropriate system may be influenced by the needs of the patient. METHODS: Retrospective study on prospectively collected data of adults with severe respiratory failure requiring vvECMO support (Regensburg ECMO Registry, 2009-2013). Oxygen (O2) transfer and carbon dioxide (CO2) elimination of four different ECMO systems (PLS system, n = 163; Cardiohelp system (CH), n = 59, Maquet Cardiopulmonary, Rastatt, Germany; Hilite 7000 LT system, n = 56, Medos Medizintechnik, Stolberg, Germany; ECC.05 system, n = 39, Sorin Group, Mirandola (MO), Italy) were analyzed. RESULTS: Gas transfer depended on type of ECMO system, blood flow, and gas flow (p ≤ 0.05, each). CO2 removal is dependent on sweep gas flow and blood flow, with higher blood flow and/or gas flow eliminating more CO2 (p ≤ 0.001). CO2 elimination capacity was highest with the PLS system (p ≤ 0.001). O2 transfer at blood flow rates below 3 l/min depended on blood flow, at higher blood flow rates on blood flow and gas flow. The system with the smallest gas exchange surface (ECC.05 system) was least effective in O2 transfer, but in terms of the gas exchange surface was the most effective. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that patients with severe hypoxemia and need for high flow ECMO benefit more from the PLS/CH or Hilite 7000 LT system. The ECC.05 system is advisable for patients with moderate hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia.
Authors: Espeed Khoshbin; Neil Roberts; Chris Harvey; David Machin; Hilliary Killer; Giles J Peek; Andrzej W Sosnowski; Richard K Firmin Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Christian Karagiannidis; Matthias Lubnow; Alois Philipp; Guenter A J Riegger; Christof Schmid; Michael Pfeifer; Thomas Mueller Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: F De Somer; K François; W van Oeveren; J Poelaert; D De Wolf; T Ebels; G Van Nooten Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: D Jegger; J-P Revelly; J Horisberger; I Mallabiabarrena; I Seigneul; M Jachertz; L K Von Segesser Journal: Int J Artif Organs Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.595
Authors: Giles J Peek; Hilliary M Killer; Richard Reeves; Andrezj W Sosnowski; Richard K Firmin Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Nicolò Patroniti; Alberto Zangrillo; Federico Pappalardo; Adriano Peris; Giovanni Cianchi; Antonio Braschi; Giorgio A Iotti; Antonio Arcadipane; Giovanna Panarello; V Marco Ranieri; Pierpaolo Terragni; Massimo Antonelli; Luciano Gattinoni; Fabrizio Oleari; Antonio Pesenti Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Alexander Hermann; Katharina Riss; Peter Schellongowski; Andja Bojic; Philipp Wohlfarth; Oliver Robak; Wolfgang R Sperr; Thomas Staudinger Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Alain Combes; Dan Brodie; Yih-Sharng Chen; Eddy Fan; José P S Henriques; Carol Hodgson; Philipp M Lepper; Pascal Leprince; Kunihiko Maekawa; Thomas Muller; Sebastian Nuding; Dagmar M Ouweneel; Antoine Roch; Matthieu Schmidt; Hiroo Takayama; Alain Vuylsteke; Karl Werdan; Laurent Papazian Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Marco Giani; Vittorio Scaravilli; Sebastiano Maria Colombo; Andrea Confalonieri; Rosambra Leo; Elena Maggioni; Leonello Avalli; Alessia Vargiolu; Giuseppe Citerio Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Sergi Vaquer; Candelaria de Haro; Paula Peruga; Joan Carles Oliva; Antonio Artigas Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 6.925