Comparing outcomes of venovenous versus venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in neonatal and pediatric respiratory failure: A retrospective review of Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry
{"title":"Comparing outcomes of venovenous versus venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in neonatal and pediatric respiratory failure: A retrospective review of Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry","authors":"JamieM Furlong-Dillard, YanaB Feygin, RonW Reeder, JohnnaS Wilson, DavidG Blauvelt, DeannaR Todd-Tzanetos, StewartR Carter, PetaM. A. Alexander, DavidK Bailly","doi":"10.4103/jpcc.jpcc_65_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The ideal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) modality choice (venoarterial [VA] versus venovenous [VV]) for a primary respiratory reason is complex and multifactorial. There is an increasing need to identify the ideal (VV vs. VA) support modality in this population. The objective of this study was to compare survival outcomes of subjects with respiratory failure who could have received VV or VA ECMO. Subjects and Methods: Children ≤20 kg requiring ECMO for respiratory indications from January 2015 to December 2019 were identified retrospectively from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. To identify a cohort eligible for VV, we excluded subjects receiving cardiac support therapies and included only those receiving mechanical ventilation with a positive end expiratory pressure ≥10 or high frequency oscillatory ventilation or had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤200 or an oxygenation index ≥16. Subjects were grouped by initial cannulation strategy. Statistical approach utilized doubly robust propensity weighted logistic regression and primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Results: Of 1686 VV candidates, 871 underwent VV and 815 VA ECMO for a respiratory indication. VV ECMO was associated with higher survival (odds ratio: 1.57; confidence interval: 1.22–2.03, P < 0.001). Conclusions: VV ECMO selection for subjects with respiratory failure was associated with lower mortality in small pediatric and neonatal patients.","PeriodicalId":34184,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatric Critical Care","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatric Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpcc.jpcc_65_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The ideal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) modality choice (venoarterial [VA] versus venovenous [VV]) for a primary respiratory reason is complex and multifactorial. There is an increasing need to identify the ideal (VV vs. VA) support modality in this population. The objective of this study was to compare survival outcomes of subjects with respiratory failure who could have received VV or VA ECMO. Subjects and Methods: Children ≤20 kg requiring ECMO for respiratory indications from January 2015 to December 2019 were identified retrospectively from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. To identify a cohort eligible for VV, we excluded subjects receiving cardiac support therapies and included only those receiving mechanical ventilation with a positive end expiratory pressure ≥10 or high frequency oscillatory ventilation or had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤200 or an oxygenation index ≥16. Subjects were grouped by initial cannulation strategy. Statistical approach utilized doubly robust propensity weighted logistic regression and primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Results: Of 1686 VV candidates, 871 underwent VV and 815 VA ECMO for a respiratory indication. VV ECMO was associated with higher survival (odds ratio: 1.57; confidence interval: 1.22–2.03, P < 0.001). Conclusions: VV ECMO selection for subjects with respiratory failure was associated with lower mortality in small pediatric and neonatal patients.
背景:理想的体外膜氧合(ECMO)模式选择(静脉动脉[VA]还是静脉静脉[VV])是一个复杂和多因素的主要呼吸原因。在这一人群中,越来越需要确定理想的(VV vs. VA)支持方式。本研究的目的是比较可以接受VV或VA ECMO的呼吸衰竭患者的生存结果。研究对象和方法:从体外生命支持组织(Extracorporeal Life Support Organization)注册表中回顾性地确定2015年1月至2019年12月需要ECMO治疗呼吸指征的≤20 kg儿童。为了确定符合VV的队列,我们排除了接受心脏支持治疗的受试者,只纳入了呼气末正压≥10或高频振荡通气的机械通气患者,或PaO2/FiO2比≤200或氧合指数≥16的患者。受试者按初始插管策略分组。统计方法采用双稳健倾向加权logistic回归,主要结局为生存至出院。结果:在1686名VV候选人中,871人接受了VV, 815人接受了呼吸指征的VA ECMO。VV ECMO与更高的生存率相关(优势比:1.57;置信区间:1.22-2.03,P < 0.001)。结论:为呼吸衰竭患者选择VV ECMO可降低儿童和新生儿患者的死亡率。