A Lucchini1, C De Felippis2, S Elli1, R Gariboldi1, S Vimercati1, P Tundo1, H Bondi1, M C Costa3. 1. Intensive Care and Emergency Department, General Intensive Care Unit, University of Milan-Bicocca, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy. 2. Adult Intensive Care Unit, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospital of Leicester-NHS Trust, UK. 3. Perfusion Service, San Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transport of patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is currently available in 5 referral centers in our country. METHODS: Retrospective case series of patients managed by our mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation team and transferred to San Gerardo University Hospital from December 2004 to December 2012. RESULTS: 42 patients were transported. The mean age was 42.11 (standard deviation ±18.11) years, with a range between 2 years and 70. 14 patients were females (33%) and 28 males (67%). The average transport distance was 121.69 km (±183.08) with a range between 9 km and 1044 Km. The mission's mean time was equal to 508 minutes (±185) with range of 120-960 minutes. 29 patients (69%) were transported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, while 13 patients (31%) were transported with conventional ventilation. In 28 patients (97%) a veno-venous bypass was utilized, while in one case (3%) a Veno-Arterial cannulation was performed. 32 patients survived (76%) and have been discharged alive from hospital. No major clinical or technical issues were observed during the transport. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, we conclude that a dedicated mobile team allowed safe ground transportation of patients with severe acute lung injury to our tertiary care institution.
INTRODUCTION: Transport of patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is currently available in 5 referral centers in our country. METHODS: Retrospective case series of patients managed by our mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation team and transferred to San Gerardo University Hospital from December 2004 to December 2012. RESULTS: 42 patients were transported. The mean age was 42.11 (standard deviation ±18.11) years, with a range between 2 years and 70. 14 patients were females (33%) and 28 males (67%). The average transport distance was 121.69 km (±183.08) with a range between 9 km and 1044 Km. The mission's mean time was equal to 508 minutes (±185) with range of 120-960 minutes. 29 patients (69%) were transported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, while 13 patients (31%) were transported with conventional ventilation. In 28 patients (97%) a veno-venous bypass was utilized, while in one case (3%) a Veno-Arterial cannulation was performed. 32 patients survived (76%) and have been discharged alive from hospital. No major clinical or technical issues were observed during the transport. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, we conclude that a dedicated mobile team allowed safe ground transportation of patients with severe acute lung injury to our tertiary care institution.
Entities:
Keywords:
ECMO; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; mobile emergency unit; severe acute respiratory syndrome; transportation of patients
The in- and out-of-hospital transport of the critically illpatient is a virtual risk of adverse clinical events also related to a potential equipment’s failure [1,2,3]. Patient’s safety is dependant on the adherence to transport’s protocols [4, 5]. Patients affected by Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) present with hypoxia and instability of gases exchange, a situation which may require the use of extracorporeal respiratory support (ECMO - Extra Corporeal Membrane oxygenation) as an emergency life-saving therapy or as a protective strategy to prevent further barotraumas from mechanical ventilation (ALI - acute lung injury) [6,7,8,9,10].In many cases, patients with ARDS should be referred to an ECMO centre, but the severe and often rapid onset of hypoxia, not manageable with conventional treatments, may not allow for a safe conventional transport [11,12,13,14]. The General Intensive Care of San Gerardo University Hospital-Monza has been working since 1989 as an Italian ECMO referring centre. Up to 2004, patients from different hospitals eligible for ECMO treatment were transported with conventional ventilation techniques by the same hospital’s clinical team, increasing in this way risks related to unsafe transport.In 2004, inspired by similar programs carried out in other countries, we implemented and put in practice a new program of ECMO positioning at the reporting ICU and consequent inter-hospital transport of these patients [8, 11]. The basic team consist of two intensivists, an ICU nurse and a perfusionist. The aim of this paper is to present our 8-year experience on inter-hospital transport of patients with severe acute respiratory failure managed by our mobile transport team (which also has ECMO capability).
42 patients were transported. The mean age was 42.11 (SD±18.11) years, with a range between 2 years and 70. 14 patients were female (33%) and 28 males (67%). The average transport distance was 121.69 km (SD±183.08) with a range between 9 km and 1044 km. The mission’s mean time (departure from and back to SGH) was equal to 508 minutes (±185 with range of 120-960 minutes). The longest distance of 1044 km was performed by transportation of the ambulance and team on the ‘Hercules C 130’ aircraft provided by the Italian Air Force. No mission was postponed or cancelled due to organizational failure or extreme weather conditions. Table 3 shows the features of patients.Population characteristics.V/V = veno-venous Ecmo; V/A = veno-arterial Ecmo; F/F = femo-femoral cannulation; Jug/F= jugular/femoral cannulation; bilumen Jug = double lumen Jugular cannula; Icu Los : intensive care unit lenght of stay.At the moment of arrival of the ECMO team, the average pO2 was 64.96 mmHg (±18.15), pCO2 was 70.71 mmHg (SD±22.06) and pH was 7.27 (±0.18). After the optimization of ventilation an improvement in oxygenation parameters (average pO2= 91.26 ± 29.85 mmHg, pCO2= 60.53 ± 20.07 mmHg) was registered in 13 patients (31%): these patients were transferred with “conventional” ventilation, without any need for ECMO implementation.In the remaining 29 patients (69%), optimization of ventilation did not result in an improvement of gas exchanges (pO2= 61.45 ± 15.61 mmHg and pCO2 70.65 ± 23.26 mmHg): in these subjects an ECMO support was instituted on site and they were transferred on ECMO to SGH. In 28 cases (97%) a veno-venous, approach was positioned while in one patient (3%) a Veno-Arterial cannulation was performed for cardiovascular support, due to simultaneous presence of ARDS and cardiogenic shock. The two sites of cannulation were the following: veno-venous femoral/femoral in 24 patients (84%), in one patient only femoral/jugular (3%) and in 3 paediatric patients (10%) a double lumen jugular cannula 15 FR was placed.For the Veno-Arterial support (3%) femoral vein-artery were cannulated. The average Blood Flow was 2.96 L/min (SD±0.93 - range: 0.6/4.3), and an average Gas-Flow average equal to 3.27 L/min (±1.47 - range: 1-6). No adverse events happened during all the cannulation’s performance.For 28 (67%) transports, transfer pulmonary ventilator EVITA® (4 or XL - Dräger Medical) were used, while in 13 cases (31%) SERVO I® Maquet ventilator was the choice; and only for the first transport the Siemens SERVO 300® ventilator was used. The median number of syringe pumps used during transport was 4 (IQR 3-4/range 2-6). The median number of inotropic drugs (Dopamine, Dobutamine, Norepinephrine) administered during transport was equal to 1 (IQR 0-1/range 0-1).We did not report any morbidity or mortality due to the transport or to the ECMO support on transfer.The following complications were observed: in one patientbattery failure of Evita XL® ventilator during transport from the ICU to the ambulance; in another case it was difficult to obtain an acceptable extracorporeal flow due to the patient’s position and it was necessary to stop the ambulance to reposition the patient. No patient required transfusion of blood products during transport.The average days on ECMO were equal to 18.21 (±22.96 - range 2/116). The average length of stay in ICU was 26.07 days (±27.96 - range 2/126). 33 patients (79%) were discharged alive from SGH, 9 died in the ICU (21%).All patients who died were transported with ECMO support: no patient died during transport, but they all died while still on ECMO. In the group of patients who required ECMO support, a subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences between survivors and non-survivors with regard to: pre-ECMO ventilation days, days on ECMO and length of hospital stay.The only statistically significant difference was observed in the duration of mechanical ventilation before the activation of the ECMO team: in survivors the median of pre-ECMO ventilation days was 2 (IQR:1-4) while in non-survivors was equal to 8 days (IQR:3-13) (p=0.04).Table 4 collects data of all patients related to pre-transfer, data collected on arrival to SGH and the ones related to patients transferred on ECMO versus no ECMO support.Clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients.Baseline = 30 minutes before ECMO; ECMO = at 60 minutes after initiation, SGH ICU admission: parameters at the end of transport when patients were admitted at SGH general ICU.SD = standard deviation; sABP-dABP-mABP: systolic, diastolic and medium Arterial Blood pressure; ABG = arterial blood gas analysis, ICU LOS = intensive care unit lenght of stay; ECMO = extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure.
Discussion
The early commence of ECMO support provides an extra source of recovery for patients who develop an acute respiratory failure not responding to standard strategy of care; furthermore for long ventilated patients, the ECMO support let to perform respiratory tidal volume less than 6 mL/kg and low respiratory rate.Many patients referred for ECMO treatment cannot take benefits from this advanced support due to high risks of death related to an ordinary transfer based on standard respiratory setting.Implementing the ECMO cannulation standards outside of SGH required several steps. The first transport required two days of preparation to assemble the equipment and suitable staff.The ambulance choice required a strict collaboration between ICU staff, ambulance crew and the SGH medical physics dept., to get through/to rule out all the technical issues related to the vehicle (electricity power supply and medical gas circuit).The nursing staff that carried out the transport was trained on fieldwork by tutoring, which was held after the first transport, according to the literature [20, 21]. In order to be qualified for transport, these are the minimum requirements: two years experience in ICU, 2 in hospital cannulation, 2 in intra-hospital transport experience and two out of hospital missions supervised by a qualified nurse.The nursing staff education (theoretical and practical) was managed by the head nurse and a senior qualified nurse.To sort out the mission different paperwork (flow charts and checklists) were created in order to verify the equipments [22, 23].Patients included in this report had an average severe hypoxia (pO2: 64.96 ± 18.15 mmHg). Despite their respiratory instability, the cardiovascular status of patients was stable. The transport described above requireed a great preparation time compared with traditional techniques.Benefits of this system involve the absence of extra adjustments after this stage, so patient will be ready to be transported straight to ambulance, furthermore after positioning in the back, there is no need to rearrange any equipment (syringe pumps, circuit, ventilator) because they are already settled, reducing the time of transfer and possible complications according to the literature [13, 14].All the equipment’s packs for transport are dedicated to ECMO transports only [24]. It makes easier to perform the quality checks and battery packs levels. These are relevant facts, identified as the most responsible in the case of adverse events such as battery failure [25, 26].Finally, it is important to point out our attitude and confidence, as referral centre, in using intensive care ventilators to perform ECMO transport compared with dedicated transport’s ventilator [27, 28].Our choice is related to an operating principle of veno-venous circuit. With a severe hypoxicpatient due to ARDS, the oxygenation is strictly related to the amount of blood volume able to get trough the gas exchange membrane surface (natural and artificial lung).In case of high cardiac output, not unusual in patients with ARDS, just a portion of the total flow could pass through the artificial membrane lung. The average Blood Flow of the subjects investigated was equal to 2.96 L/min (±0.93).It means that a certain part of the blood flow should be oxygenated via the natural lung. In order to perform advanced respiratory care with high levels of PEEP despite a very poor compliance, it is essential to use high performance ventilators able to get advanced ventilation settings, allowing to mix them as well (Volume guaranteed steady pressure® - CPPV Autoflow®, Sigh option on control ventilation®) and with high air-operating performance. The average level of PEEP during missions was equal to 16.50 (±3.84) cm H2O.Our results confirm two important findings reported in the recent literature:a) transfer to a tertiary-level ICU with ECMO capability has a positive impact on patients’ outcome [30];b) since the number of ventilation days before ECMO institution is clearly related to survival, it is of paramount importance that all patients deemed eligible for ECMO treatment are referred as early as possible to a specialized ICU. These data is similar to those published by all centers related to Italian “ECMOnet” [12].In addition, it must be underlined the importance of clinical stabilization of the patients before transport [29].The number of adverse events observed in our patients during transport were comparable to those reported by other centers or networks that have implemented similar programs aimed at the centralization of ECMO candidates [7, 8, 12, 30].The main limitation of this study is related to retrospective analysis.Data were collected from medical records and it was not possible to get back all the clinical data for each patient prior to ambulance transfer.For this reason, we could not compare the different subgroups with regard to severity scores (like SOFA or APACHE) or to the incidence of other comorbidities. However, our goal was only to report our 8-years experience of inter-hospital transportation of critically illpatients and to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of a “Mobile ECMO team” program. We are now performing a prospective study with capillary recording of all relevant clinical variables, in order to perform adequate comparison between different groups of patients; in addition, we are planning to perform a follow-up analysis to investigate the quality of life of surviving patients.
Conclusion
Analysis of risk factors and a plan for actions allow to improve a program for ECMO transport of persons affected by ALI or ARDS to a referring centre.In order to achieve this goal, four factors seem to be crucial: identification of a vehicle with specific tech features, systematic and precise settings of equipment, a tool-system to sort out equipment and a dedicated training program for nurses involved in these missions.
Authors: M Gebremichael; U Borg; N M Habashi; C Cottingham; L Cunsolo; M McCunn; H N Reynolds Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: David S Foley; Thomas Pranikoff; John G Younger; Fresca Swaniker; Mark R Hemmila; Robert A Remenapp; William Copenhaver; Denise Landis; Ronald B Hirschl; Robert H Bartlett Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2002 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: M Bérubé; F Bernard; H Marion; J Parent; M Thibault; D R Williamson; M Albert Journal: Intensive Crit Care Nurs Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 3.072
Authors: Pier Paolo Terragni; Lorenzo Del Sorbo; Luciana Mascia; Rosario Urbino; Erica L Martin; Alberto Birocco; Chiara Faggiano; Michael Quintel; Luciano Gattinoni; V Marco Ranieri Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 7.892
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: Pedro Vitale Mendes; Cesar de Albuquerque Gallo; Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen; Adriana Sayuri Hirota; Raquel de Oliveira Nardi; Edzangela Vasconcelos Dos Santos; Ho Yeh Li; Daniel Joelsons; Eduardo Leite Vieira Costa; Flavia Krepel Foronda; Luciano Cesar Pontes Azevedo; Marcelo Park Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Sebastian Blecha; Frank Dodoo-Schittko; Susanne Brandstetter; Magdalena Brandl; Michael Dittmar; Bernhard M Graf; Christian Karagiannidis; Christian Apfelbacher; Thomas Bein Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2018-01-15 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Stefan Felix Ehrentraut; Barbara Schroll; Stefan Lenkeit; Heidi Ehrentraut; Christian Bode; Stefan Kreyer; Florian Kögl; Felix Lehmann; Thomas Muders; Martin Scholz; Claudia Strater; Folkert Steinhagen; Nils Ulrich Theuerkauf; Carsten Weißbrich; Christian Putensen; Jens-Christian Schewe Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 2.217