BACKGROUND: Given substantial advances in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) technology, long-term support is increasingly feasible. Although the benefits of short-term ECMO as a bridge to recovery in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are well described, the utility and outcomes of long-term support remain unclear. METHODS: Patients requiring ECMO for ARDS between January 2009 and November 2012 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed separately for those requiring ECMO support for less than 3 weeks or for 3 weeks or longer. Demographic factors, ECMO variables, and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with ARDS received ECMO during the study period, with 11 patients requiring long-term ECMO support and a median duration of 36 (interquartile range: 24 to 68) days. Recovery was the initial goal in all patients. Pre-ECMO mechanical ventilatory support, indices of disease severity, and the ECMO cannulation strategy were similar between the two groups. Eight (73%) patients receiving long-term support were bridged to recovery, and 1 patient was bridged to transplantation after a refractory course. Eight (73%) patients receiving long-term support and 25 (57%) patients receiving short-term support survived to 30 days and hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Previously, long-term ECMO support was thought to be associated with unfavorable outcomes. This study, however, may provide support for the efficacy of ECMO support even for 3 weeks or more as a bridge to recovery or transplantation.
BACKGROUND: Given substantial advances in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) technology, long-term support is increasingly feasible. Although the benefits of short-term ECMO as a bridge to recovery in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are well described, the utility and outcomes of long-term support remain unclear. METHODS:Patients requiring ECMO for ARDS between January 2009 and November 2012 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed separately for those requiring ECMO support for less than 3 weeks or for 3 weeks or longer. Demographic factors, ECMO variables, and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with ARDS received ECMO during the study period, with 11 patients requiring long-term ECMO support and a median duration of 36 (interquartile range: 24 to 68) days. Recovery was the initial goal in all patients. Pre-ECMO mechanical ventilatory support, indices of disease severity, and the ECMO cannulation strategy were similar between the two groups. Eight (73%) patients receiving long-term support were bridged to recovery, and 1 patient was bridged to transplantation after a refractory course. Eight (73%) patients receiving long-term support and 25 (57%) patients receiving short-term support survived to 30 days and hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Previously, long-term ECMO support was thought to be associated with unfavorable outcomes. This study, however, may provide support for the efficacy of ECMO support even for 3 weeks or more as a bridge to recovery or transplantation.
Authors: David K C Cooper; Martin Wijkstrom; Sundaram Hariharan; Joshua L Chan; Avneesh Singh; Keith Horvath; Muhammad Mohiuddin; Arielle Cimeno; Rolf N Barth; John C LaMattina; Richard N Pierson Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Lorriana E Leard; Are M Holm; Maryam Valapour; Allan R Glanville; Sandeep Attawar; Meghan Aversa; Silvia V Campos; Lillian M Christon; Marcelo Cypel; Göran Dellgren; Matthew G Hartwig; Siddhartha G Kapnadak; Nicholas A Kolaitis; Robert M Kotloff; Caroline M Patterson; Oksana A Shlobin; Patrick J Smith; Amparo Solé; Melinda Solomon; David Weill; Marlies S Wijsenbeek; Brigitte W M Willemse; Selim M Arcasoy; Kathleen J Ramos Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 13.569
Authors: Esther Dreier; Maximilian Valentin Malfertheiner; Thomas Dienemann; Christoph Fisser; Maik Foltan; Florian Geismann; Bernhard Graf; Dirk Lunz; Lars Siegfried Maier; Thomas Müller; Robert Offner; David Peterhoff; Alois Philipp; Bernd Salzberger; Barbara Schmidt; Barbara Sinner; Matthias Lubnow Journal: Perfusion Date: 2021-02-20 Impact factor: 1.972