Ivo M B Francischetti1, James Szymanski2, Daniel Rodriguez3, Moonseong Heo4, Lucia R Wolgast2. 1. Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, United States. Electronic address: Ivfranci@montefiore.org. 2. Department of Pathology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, United States. 3. Pediatric Perfusion Service, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, United States. 4. Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Survival of patients on ECMO has remained stable in every population. Laboratory values predictors of survival are required to improve patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical Looking Glass software was used to assess Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) of patients at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center (2007-2014). RESULTS: Our population comprises of 166 adults and was divided in survivors and non-survivors, within 30days. Indications for ECMO were cardiac (65%), respiratory (25%) and infectious diseases (<10%). Eighty six patients (51.8%) survived the procedure. Gender, body weight, ejection fraction, diastolic blood pressure, and socio-economic status did not differ among survivors and non-survivors. In contrast, younger patients (45yo vs 55yo, p=0.0001) and higher systolic blood pressure (115mmHg vs 103mmHg, p=0.025) have favorable outcome. Univariate analysis shows that pre-cannulation values for creatinine (p=0.0003), chloride (p=0.009), bicarbonate (p=0.015) and pH (p=0.03) have prognostic value. Post-cannulation aPTT, pH, platelet and lymphocyte counts also have discriminative power. Notably, multiple logistic regressions for Multivariate Analysis identified chloride (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02-1.13; p=0.004), pH (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.89-5.9; p<0.0001) and aPTT (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.976-0.998; p=0.024) as independent risk factors for 30-day mortality. These results imply that pre-existing renal conditions and hemostatic dysregulation contribute to poor outcome. Finally, patients on VV-ECMO have increase odds of survival (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.06-3.34; p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory markers identified herein may guide the management of patients on ECMO.
PURPOSE: Survival of patients on ECMO has remained stable in every population. Laboratory values predictors of survival are required to improve patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical Looking Glass software was used to assess Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) of patients at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center (2007-2014). RESULTS: Our population comprises of 166 adults and was divided in survivors and non-survivors, within 30days. Indications for ECMO were cardiac (65%), respiratory (25%) and infectious diseases (<10%). Eighty six patients (51.8%) survived the procedure. Gender, body weight, ejection fraction, diastolic blood pressure, and socio-economic status did not differ among survivors and non-survivors. In contrast, younger patients (45yo vs 55yo, p=0.0001) and higher systolic blood pressure (115mmHg vs 103mmHg, p=0.025) have favorable outcome. Univariate analysis shows that pre-cannulation values for creatinine (p=0.0003), chloride (p=0.009), bicarbonate (p=0.015) and pH (p=0.03) have prognostic value. Post-cannulation aPTT, pH, platelet and lymphocyte counts also have discriminative power. Notably, multiple logistic regressions for Multivariate Analysis identified chloride (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02-1.13; p=0.004), pH (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.89-5.9; p<0.0001) and aPTT (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.976-0.998; p=0.024) as independent risk factors for 30-day mortality. These results imply that pre-existing renal conditions and hemostatic dysregulation contribute to poor outcome. Finally, patients on VV-ECMO have increase odds of survival (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.06-3.34; p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory markers identified herein may guide the management of patients on ECMO.
Authors: Gennaro Martucci; Artur Słomka; Steven Eric Lebowitz; Giuseppe Maria Raffa; Pietro Giorgio Malvindi; Valeria Lo Coco; Justyna Swol; Ewa Żekanowska; Roberto Lorusso; Waldemar Wierzba; Piotr Suwalski; Mariusz Kowalewski Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2021 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: I Rodriguez-Goncer; S Thomas; P Foden; M D Richardson; A Ashworth; J Barker; C G Geraghty; E G Muldoon; T W Felton Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Katrina K Ki; Jonathan E Millar; Daman Langguth; Margaret R Passmore; Charles I McDonald; Kiran Shekar; Manu Shankar-Hari; Hwa Jin Cho; Jacky Y Suen; John F Fraser Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Johannes Gratz; André Pausch; Eva Schaden; Andreas Baierl; Peter Jaksch; Friedrich Erhart; Konrad Hoetzenecker; Marion Wiegele Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 3.094