BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an accepted and reliable technique to provide temporary circulatory and/or respiratory support. Our objective was to describe the transfusion requirements in ECMO recipients. Secondarily, we addressed the effect of indications for ECMO on transfusion requirements and the baseline factors associated with worse survival. METHODS: We reviewed the prospectively collected data of 509 patients receiving venoarterial (VA) or venovenous (VV) ECMO therapy (2005-2016). Follow-up was prospectively conducted. Data were prospectively entered in the Rennes ECMO database. RESULTS: VA ECMO was employed in 81% of cases; indications were post-cardiotomy myocardial failure in 28% of cases, post-heart transplantation (early graft failure) in 13.2% and cardiogenic shock in 149 (36.4%). VV ECMO was employed in the remaining patients. Average follow-up was 80.25 ± 85.13 days and was 100% complete. In the VA and VV groups, survival at the 30th post-implantation day was 58.3% and 71.1%, respectively, and survival at 6 months was 40.5% and 50.5%, respectively. Platelets and prothrombin time (PT) levels were significantly lower in the VA ECMO group at implantation (p<0.001). VA ECMO patients had a higher rate of thrombotic/haemorrhagic complications (p<0.001) and received both fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (60.5% vs. 31.8% p<0.001) and platelet units (Plt) (61.7% vs. 34.1% p<0.001) more frequently than VV ECMO patients. Post-cardiotomy and post-transplantation patients had significantly higher rates of transfusion of packed red blood cells (pRBC), FFP and Plt than other VA ECMO cases (p<0.001, all). Mortality was equal or greater than 80% among patient subgroups who received more than 19 pRBC, 5 Plt and/or 12 FFP. CONCLUSIONS: An ECMO program is associated with important consumption of blood products. VA ECMO patients have a greater transfusion burden than VV ECMO patients. Mortality is greater in the case of extreme transfusion requirements.
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an accepted and reliable technique to provide temporary circulatory and/or respiratory support. Our objective was to describe the transfusion requirements in ECMO recipients. Secondarily, we addressed the effect of indications for ECMO on transfusion requirements and the baseline factors associated with worse survival. METHODS: We reviewed the prospectively collected data of 509 patients receiving venoarterial (VA) or venovenous (VV) ECMO therapy (2005-2016). Follow-up was prospectively conducted. Data were prospectively entered in the Rennes ECMO database. RESULTS: VA ECMO was employed in 81% of cases; indications were post-cardiotomy myocardial failure in 28% of cases, post-heart transplantation (early graft failure) in 13.2% and cardiogenic shock in 149 (36.4%). VV ECMO was employed in the remaining patients. Average follow-up was 80.25 ± 85.13 days and was 100% complete. In the VA and VV groups, survival at the 30th post-implantation day was 58.3% and 71.1%, respectively, and survival at 6 months was 40.5% and 50.5%, respectively. Platelets and prothrombin time (PT) levels were significantly lower in the VA ECMO group at implantation (p<0.001). VA ECMO patients had a higher rate of thrombotic/haemorrhagic complications (p<0.001) and received both fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (60.5% vs. 31.8% p<0.001) and platelet units (Plt) (61.7% vs. 34.1% p<0.001) more frequently than VV ECMO patients. Post-cardiotomy and post-transplantation patients had significantly higher rates of transfusion of packed red blood cells (pRBC), FFP and Plt than other VA ECMO cases (p<0.001, all). Mortality was equal or greater than 80% among patient subgroups who received more than 19 pRBC, 5 Plt and/or 12 FFP. CONCLUSIONS: An ECMO program is associated with important consumption of blood products. VA ECMO patients have a greater transfusion burden than VV ECMO patients. Mortality is greater in the case of extreme transfusion requirements.
Entities:
Keywords:
VA ECMO; VV ECMO; complications; outcomes; survival; transfusion
Authors: Marianne E Nellis; Arun Saini; Philip C Spinella; Peter J Davis; Marie E Steiner; Marisa Tucci; Melissa Cushing; Pierre Demaret; Simon J Stanworth; Stephane Leteurtre; Oliver Karam Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Sebastian D Sahli; Alexander Kaserer; Donat R Spahn; Markus J Wilhelm; Julia Braun; Maximilian Halbe; Yuliya Dahlem; Muriel A Spahn; Julian Rössler; Bernard Krüger; Francesco Maisano Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 3.005