Comparison of Conventional Methods with Pump-Controlled Retrograde Trial off for Weaning Adults with Cardiogenic Shock from Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Q4 Medicine Journal of Chest Surgery Pub Date : 2024-04-08 DOI:10.5090/jcs.23.168
J. Jo, Woo Sung Jang, N. Park, Y. Kim, Jae Bum Kim, K. Song
{"title":"Comparison of Conventional Methods with Pump-Controlled Retrograde Trial off for Weaning Adults with Cardiogenic Shock from Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.","authors":"J. Jo, Woo Sung Jang, N. Park, Y. Kim, Jae Bum Kim, K. Song","doi":"10.5090/jcs.23.168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background\nPump-controlled retrograde trial off (PCRTO) is a safe, simple, and reversible method for weaning patients from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). However, few studies have compared PCRTO to conventional weaning methods. This retrospective study aimed to compare PCRTO to non-PCRTO methods.\n\n\nMethods\nThis study included patients who were weaned from VA-ECMO from January 2016 to December 2022 at our medical center. Demographic data, ECMO management, ECMO complications, survival to discharge, and cardiogenic shock after VA-ECMO weaning were compared between the 2 groups.\n\n\nResults\nSeventy patients who were weaned from VA-ECMO using PCRTO and 85 patients who were weaned with conventional methods were compared. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The rate of survival to discharge was significantly higher in the PCRTO group than in the non-PCRTO group (90% vs. 72%, p=0.01). The rates of freedom from all-cause mortality at 10, 30, and 50 days after weaning from ECMO were 75%, 55%, and 35% in the non-PCRTO group and 62%, 60%, and 58% in the PCRTO group, respectively (p=0.1). The incidence of cardiogenic shock after weaning from VA-ECMO was significantly higher in the non-PCRTO group (16% vs. 5%, p=0.04). In logistic regression analysis, PCRTO was a significant factor for survival to discharge (odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-5.28; p=0.02).\n\n\nConclusion\nCompared to conventional methods, PCRTO is a feasible and reversible method, and it serves as a useful predictor of successful VA-ECMO weaning through a preload stress test.","PeriodicalId":34499,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chest Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chest Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.23.168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Pump-controlled retrograde trial off (PCRTO) is a safe, simple, and reversible method for weaning patients from veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). However, few studies have compared PCRTO to conventional weaning methods. This retrospective study aimed to compare PCRTO to non-PCRTO methods. Methods This study included patients who were weaned from VA-ECMO from January 2016 to December 2022 at our medical center. Demographic data, ECMO management, ECMO complications, survival to discharge, and cardiogenic shock after VA-ECMO weaning were compared between the 2 groups. Results Seventy patients who were weaned from VA-ECMO using PCRTO and 85 patients who were weaned with conventional methods were compared. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The rate of survival to discharge was significantly higher in the PCRTO group than in the non-PCRTO group (90% vs. 72%, p=0.01). The rates of freedom from all-cause mortality at 10, 30, and 50 days after weaning from ECMO were 75%, 55%, and 35% in the non-PCRTO group and 62%, 60%, and 58% in the PCRTO group, respectively (p=0.1). The incidence of cardiogenic shock after weaning from VA-ECMO was significantly higher in the non-PCRTO group (16% vs. 5%, p=0.04). In logistic regression analysis, PCRTO was a significant factor for survival to discharge (odds ratio, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-5.28; p=0.02). Conclusion Compared to conventional methods, PCRTO is a feasible and reversible method, and it serves as a useful predictor of successful VA-ECMO weaning through a preload stress test.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较传统方法与泵控制逆行试验关闭法,为患有心源性休克的成人进行静脉-动脉体外膜氧合疗程断流。
背景泵控逆行脱机(PCRTO)是一种安全、简单、可逆的静脉-动脉体外膜氧合(VA-ECMO)患者断流方法。然而,很少有研究将 PCRTO 与传统断流方法进行比较。本回顾性研究旨在比较 PCRTO 和非 PCRTO 方法。方法本研究纳入了 2016 年 1 月至 2022 年 12 月在本医疗中心从 VA-ECMO 断流的患者。比较了两组患者的人口统计学数据、ECMO管理、ECMO并发症、出院生存率以及VA-ECMO断流后的心源性休克。两组患者的特征无明显差异。PCRTO 组的出院存活率明显高于非 PCRTO 组(90% 对 72%,P=0.01)。在 ECMO 断流后 10 天、30 天和 50 天,非 PCRTO 组的全因死亡率分别为 75%、55% 和 35%,而 PCRTO 组分别为 62%、60% 和 58%(P=0.1)。从 VA-ECMO 断流后,非 PCRTO 组的心源性休克发生率明显更高(16% 对 5%,P=0.04)。结论与传统方法相比,PCRTO 是一种可行且可逆的方法,通过前负荷压力测试,PCRTO 是预测 VA-ECMO 成功断流的有效指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Chest Surgery
Journal of Chest Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Costs Associated with Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Korea. Diaphragmatic Fibromatosis: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Histological Findings of ETosis in Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome with Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Follow-Up Case Report. Recommendation for Clinical T Staging in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Volumetric Measurement: A Retrospective Study from Turkey. Prediction Model of Delayed Hemothorax in Patients with Traumatic Occult Hemothorax Using a Novel Nomogram.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1