BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been proven to support in lifesaving rescue therapy. The best outcomes can be achieved in high-volume ECMO centers with dedicated emergency transport teams. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze the safety of ECMO support during medical transfer on the basis of our experience developed on innovation cooperation and review of literature. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our experience of all ECMO-supported patients transferred from regional hospital of the referential ECMO center between 2015 and 2020 was carried out. Special attention was paid to transportation-related mortality and morbidity. Moreover, a systematic review of the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was performed. It included the original papers published before the end of 2019. RESULTS: Twelve (5 women and 7 men) critically ill ECMO-supported patients with the median age of 33 years (2-63 years) were transferred to our ECMO center. In 92% (n = 11) of the cases venovenous and in 1 case, venoarterial supports were applied. The median transfer length was 45 km (5-200). There was no mortality during transfer and no serious adverse events occurred. Of note, the first ECMO-supported transfer had been proceeded by high-fidelity simulations. For our systematic review, 68 articles were found and 22 of them satisfied the search criteria. A total number of 2647 transfers were reported, mainly primary (90%) and as ground transportations (91.6%). A rate of adverse events ranged from 1% through 20% but notably only major complications were mentioned. The 4 deaths occurred during transport (mortality 0.15%). CONCLUSIONS: Our experiences and literature review showed that transportation for ECMO patients done by experienced staff was associated with low mortality rate but life-threatening adverse events might occur. Translational simulation is an excellent probing technique to improve transportation safety.
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been proven to support in lifesaving rescue therapy. The best outcomes can be achieved in high-volume ECMO centers with dedicated emergency transport teams. AIM: The aim of this study was to analyze the safety of ECMO support during medical transfer on the basis of our experience developed on innovation cooperation and review of literature. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our experience of all ECMO-supported patients transferred from regional hospital of the referential ECMO center between 2015 and 2020 was carried out. Special attention was paid to transportation-related mortality and morbidity. Moreover, a systematic review of the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was performed. It included the original papers published before the end of 2019. RESULTS: Twelve (5 women and 7 men) critically ill ECMO-supported patients with the median age of 33 years (2-63 years) were transferred to our ECMO center. In 92% (n = 11) of the cases venovenous and in 1 case, venoarterial supports were applied. The median transfer length was 45 km (5-200). There was no mortality during transfer and no serious adverse events occurred. Of note, the first ECMO-supported transfer had been proceeded by high-fidelity simulations. For our systematic review, 68 articles were found and 22 of them satisfied the search criteria. A total number of 2647 transfers were reported, mainly primary (90%) and as ground transportations (91.6%). A rate of adverse events ranged from 1% through 20% but notably only major complications were mentioned. The 4 deaths occurred during transport (mortality 0.15%). CONCLUSIONS: Our experiences and literature review showed that transportation for ECMO patients done by experienced staff was associated with low mortality rate but life-threatening adverse events might occur. Translational simulation is an excellent probing technique to improve transportation safety.
Authors: Alain Combes; Daniel Brodie; Robert Bartlett; Laurent Brochard; Roy Brower; Steve Conrad; Daniel De Backer; Eddy Fan; Niall Ferguson; James Fortenberry; John Fraser; Luciano Gattinoni; William Lynch; Graeme MacLaren; Alain Mercat; Thomas Mueller; Mark Ogino; Giles Peek; Vince Pellegrino; Antonio Pesenti; Marco Ranieri; Arthur Slutsky; Alain Vuylsteke Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Aitor Uribarri; Ignacio Cruz-González; María José Dalmau; María Concepción Rubia-Martín; Miriam Ochoa; Pedro L Sánchez Journal: Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) Date: 2017-03-31
Authors: Sabina P W Guenther; Stefan Buchholz; Frank Born; Stefan Brunner; René Schramm; Dominik J Hoechter; Vera von Dossow; Maximilian Pichlmaier; Christian Hagl; Nawid Khaladj Journal: Air Med J Date: 2017-08-12
Authors: Javier Muñoz; Patricia Santa-Teresa; María Jesus Tomey; Lourdes Carmen Visedo; Elena Keough; Juan Camilo Barrios; Santiago Sabell; Antonio Morales Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Carrie L Freeman; Tellen D Bennett; T Charles Casper; Gitte Y Larsen; Ania Hubbard; Jacob Wilkes; Susan L Bratton Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Janke S Wiegersma; Joep M Droogh; Jan G Zijlstra; Janneke Fokkema; Jack J M Ligtenberg Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-02-28 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Yang-Chao Zhao; Xi Zhao; Guo-Wei Fu; Ming-Jun Huang; Hui Zhao; Zhen-Qing Wang; Xing-Xing Li; Jun Li Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-13