| Literature DB >> 33880051 |
Yu Zhang1, Xiaoping Fan2, Guanhua Li3,4, Jianfeng Zeng5, Zhaoyuan Liu6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is still a worldwide pandemic and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is vital for extremely critical COVID-19 patients. Pulsatile flow impacts greatly on organ function and microcirculation, however, the effects of pulsatile flow on hemodynamics and inflammatory responses during ECMO are unknown. An in vivo study was launched aiming at comparing the two perfusion modes in ECMO.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; inflammatory response; pulsatile flow
Year: 2021 PMID: 33880051 PMCID: PMC8052115 DOI: 10.2147/JIR.S292543
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Inflamm Res ISSN: 1178-7031
Figure 1The investigated V-A ECMO circuits.
Hematological Variables of the Experimental ECMO Circuits
| Non-Pulsatile Group (n=7) | Pulsatile Group (n=7) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | / | / | / |
| 24 hr ECMO | 242.3±23.8 | 228.9±21.1 | 0.33 |
| Baseline | 35.6±16.5 | 29.9±20.4 | 0.09 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 26.2±9.7 | 22.0±8.6 | 0.08 |
| Baseline | 0.6±0.1 | 0.5±0.1 | 0.54 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 1.7±0.8 | 1.9±0.7 | 0.19 |
| Baseline | 92.0±32.6 | 102.5±26.3 | 0.07 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 73.4±19.3 | 68.8±28.7 | 0.23 |
| Baseline | 9.7±3.4 | 10.1±3.5 | 0.45 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 11.3±4.2 | 12.9±5.5 | 0.1 |
| Baseline | 5.0±2.6 | 4.8±2.4 | 0.69 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 7.9±3.9 | 8.0±3.1 | 0.71 |
| Baseline | 3.3±1.8 | 3.9±0.6 | 0.38 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 2.0±1.3 | 2.7±1.9 | 0.26 |
| Baseline | 0.9±0.4 | 0.8±0.5 | 0.82 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 1.1±0.5 | 1.8±0.7 | 0.31 |
| Baseline | 0.4±0.1 | 0.4±0.2 | 0.87 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 0.2±0.07 | 0.3±0.09 | 0.15 |
| Baseline | 0.1±0.04 | 0.2±0.08 | 0.08 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 0.1±0.03 | 0.1±0.02 | 0.73 |
| Baseline | 152.2±32.6 | 147.5±40.1 | 0.28 |
| 24 hr ECMO | 101.3±40.7 | 118.9±45.4 | 0.2 |
| Baseline | / | / | / |
| 24 hr ECMO | 76.4±39.3 | 92.0±55.1 | 0.06 |
Abbreviation: ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Hemodynamic Data of the Experimental ECMO Circuits
| Group | MAP (mmHg) | EEP (mmHg) | SHE (ergs/cm3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| NP-ECMO | 45.9±4.5 | 47.1±5.5 | 1602.4±720.3 |
| P-ECMO | 45.7±6.0 | 64.4±7.7* | 25,308.6±3569.5# |
Notes: *p<0.05, pulsatility versus non-pulsatility; #p<0.01, pulsatility versus non-pulsatility.
Abbreviations: MAP, mean arterial pressure; EEP, energy equivalent pressure; SHE, surplus hemodynamic energy; NP, non-pulsatile; P, pulsatile; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Figure 2Comparisons of hemodynamic pressures (A) and pressure drops (B) in the investigated ECMO circuits.
Cytokines Changes in the ECMO Circuits
| Time-Points | Groups | TNF-α (pg/mL) | IL-1β (pg/mL) | IL-6 (pg/mL) | IL-8 (pg/mL) | TGF-β1 (pg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1.0±0.2 | 0.4±0.1 | 0.0±0.0 | 0.0±0.0 | 2106.7±312.6 | |
| 1.1±0.3 | 0.3±0.1 | 0.0±0.0 | 0.0±0.0 | 1923.6±234.4 | ||
| Start of ECMO | 6.5±2.6 | 0.3±0.1 | 1.0±0.3 | 8.8±2.4 | 2312.0±211.7 | |
| 7.4±3.9 | 0.6±0.3 | 1.1±0.5 | 11.0±6.0 | 2045.8±294.3 | ||
| ECMO 2hr | 14.7±6.4 | 3.5±0.5 | 12.0±3.2 | 26.5±7.4 | 2516.6±328.6 | |
| 8.0±4.2* | 4.6±1.7 | 12.3±5.7 | 23.3±7.2 | 4854.5±621.8# | ||
| ECMO 6hr | 91.6±35.8 | 14.0±4.4 | 88.9±40.6 | 65.8±18.5 | 3431.3±764.1 | |
| 80.3±48.1 | 12.3±6.8 | 70.6±42.1 | 61.1±36.6 | 8674.1±1010.2# | ||
| ECMO 12hr | 123.5±43.3 | 26.1±7.5 | 300.2±96.6 | 164.4±32.7 | 3708.2±886.5 | |
| 90.0±41.9* | 20.4±10.0 | 286.8±102.9 | 134.6±72.3 | 10,352.4±2456.3# | ||
| ECMO 24hr | 141.1±65.0 | 31.7±7.9 | 457.7±180.4 | 192.7±77.7 | 4521.4±1024.4 | |
| 97.5±38.7# | 21.2±6.6* | 394.5±204.5 | 175.3±82.1 | 13,840.0±2277.8# |
Notes: *p<0.05, pulsatility versus non-pulsatility; #p<0.01, pulsatility versus non-pulsatility.
Abbreviations: NP, non-pulsatile; P, pulsatile; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; IL, interleukin; TGF, tissue growing factor.