| Literature DB >> 27127794 |
T S R Delnoij1, R Driessen1, A S Sharma2, E A Bouman3, U Strauch4, P M Roekaerts4.
Abstract
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) is a highly invasive method for organ support that is gaining in popularity due to recent technical advances and its successful application in the recent H1N1 epidemic. Although running a vv-ECMO program is potentially feasible for many hospitals, there are many theoretical concepts and practical issues that merit attention and require expertise. In this review, we focus on indications for vv-ECMO, components of the circuit, and management of patients on vv-ECMO. Concepts regarding oxygenation and decarboxylation and how they can be influenced are discussed. Day-to-day management, weaning, and most frequent complications are covered in light of the recent literature.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27127794 PMCID: PMC4835630 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9367464
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Randomized or propensity matched studies with vv-ECMO.
| Year, author | Study type | Method | Inclusion | ECMO indications |
| ECMO duration (days) | Survival |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009, Peek et al. [ | Multicenter RCT | Randomization to referral ECMO center versus conventional treatment in referring hospital | ECMO indication | 18–65 years, reversible respiratory failure + | 180 (90 vv-ECMO, 90 conventional) | 9 | 63% (ECMO) versus 47% (conventional) 6-month survival without disability ( |
| 2011, Noah et al. [ | Prospective, multicenter cohort study with propensity matching | 2009-2010 Swift database; suspected and confirmed H1N1 in 192 ICUs in the UK | Referral to an ECMO center | 18–65 years, reversible respiratory failure + | 80 patients referred (69 vv-ECMO) | 9 | 76% survival to discharge (ECMO) versus 53% (propensity) ( |
| 2013, Pham et al. [ | Prospective, multicenter cohort study with propensity matching | 2009-2010 H1N1 infected patients in 114 participating French ICUs | H1N1 related ARDS treated with ECMO | Not specified | 123 ECMO patients (107 vv-ECMO, 16 va-ECMO) | 11 | 50% (ECMO) versus 40% (conventional) ( |
| 2014, Guirand et al. [ | Multicenter cohort study | 2001–2009 database in 2-level I trauma centers in the US | Acute hypoxic failure (PaO2/FiO2 < 80 + FiO2 > 90% + Murray >3 .0) | 16–55 years, PaO2/FiO2-ratio ≤80, FiO2 > 0.9, Murray > 3.0 | 26 vv-ECMO | 32 | 65% (ECMO) versus 24% (conventional) ( |
Murray Lung Injury Score.
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PaO2/FiO2 on FiO2 100% | 300 mmHg | 225–299 mmHg | 175–224 mmHg | 100–174 mmHg | <100 mmHg |
| Chest X-ray quadrants | Normal | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| PEEP (cmH2O) | ≤5 | 6–8 | 9–11 | 12–14 | ≥15 |
| Compliance (mL/cmH2O) | ≥80 | 60–79 | 40–59 | 20–39 | ≤19 |
Figure 1Basic vv-ECMO setup.
Figure 2Cannulation options in vv-ECMO. (a) Femorojugular configuration. (b) Femorofemoral configuration. (c) Dual-lumen cannula. SVC: superior vena cava. IVC: inferior vena cava. RA: right atrium. TV: tricuspid valve. Adapted from Sidebotham et al. [38].