Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe traumatic brain injury: Is it safe?

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000004421
Wardah Rafaqat, John Luckoski, Emanuele Lagazzi, May Abiad, Vahe Panossian, Ikemsinachi Nzenwa, Haytham M A Kaafarani, John O Hwabejire, Benjamin C Renne
{"title":"Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe traumatic brain injury: Is it safe?","authors":"Wardah Rafaqat, John Luckoski, Emanuele Lagazzi, May Abiad, Vahe Panossian, Ikemsinachi Nzenwa, Haytham M A Kaafarani, John O Hwabejire, Benjamin C Renne","doi":"10.1097/TA.0000000000004421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of respiratory failure refractory to traditional therapies. The safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in this population remains unclear. We aimed to examine outcomes following ECMO compared with traditional management in severe TBI patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2017-2020). We identified patients 18 years or older with severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Score head, ≥3) who underwent ECMO or had either in-hospital cardiac or acute respiratory distress syndrome during their hospitalization. The study excluded pPatients who arrived without signs of life, had a prehospital cardiac arrest, had an unsurvivable injury, were transferred out within 48 hours of arrival, or were received as a transfer and died within 12 hours of arrival Patients with missing information regarding in-hospital mortality were also excluded. Outcomes included mortality, in-hospital complications, and intensive care unit length of stay. To account for patient and injury characteristics, we used 1:1 propensity matching. We performed a subgroup analysis among ECMO patients, comparing patients who received anticoagulants with those who did not.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 10,065 patients, of whom 221 (2.2%) underwent ECMO. In the propensity-matched sample of 134 pairs, there was no difference in mortality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with a higher incidence of cerebrovascular accidents (9% vs. 1%, p = 0.006) and a lower incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. In the subgroup analysis of 64 matched pairs, patients receiving anticoagulation had lower mortality, higher unplanned return to the operating room, and longer duration of ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in severe TBI patients was not associated with higher mortality and should be considered a potential intervention in this patient population. Systemic anticoagulation showed mortality benefit, but further work is required to elucidate the impact on neurological outcomes, and the appropriate dosing and timing of anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"135-144"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004421","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of respiratory failure refractory to traditional therapies. The safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in this population remains unclear. We aimed to examine outcomes following ECMO compared with traditional management in severe TBI patients.

Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2017-2020). We identified patients 18 years or older with severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Score head, ≥3) who underwent ECMO or had either in-hospital cardiac or acute respiratory distress syndrome during their hospitalization. The study excluded pPatients who arrived without signs of life, had a prehospital cardiac arrest, had an unsurvivable injury, were transferred out within 48 hours of arrival, or were received as a transfer and died within 12 hours of arrival Patients with missing information regarding in-hospital mortality were also excluded. Outcomes included mortality, in-hospital complications, and intensive care unit length of stay. To account for patient and injury characteristics, we used 1:1 propensity matching. We performed a subgroup analysis among ECMO patients, comparing patients who received anticoagulants with those who did not.

Results: We identified 10,065 patients, of whom 221 (2.2%) underwent ECMO. In the propensity-matched sample of 134 pairs, there was no difference in mortality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with a higher incidence of cerebrovascular accidents (9% vs. 1%, p = 0.006) and a lower incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. In the subgroup analysis of 64 matched pairs, patients receiving anticoagulation had lower mortality, higher unplanned return to the operating room, and longer duration of ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay.

Conclusion: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in severe TBI patients was not associated with higher mortality and should be considered a potential intervention in this patient population. Systemic anticoagulation showed mortality benefit, but further work is required to elucidate the impact on neurological outcomes, and the appropriate dosing and timing of anticoagulation.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

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
严重创伤性脑损伤中的体外膜氧合:它安全吗?
背景:严重创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者呼吸衰竭的风险增加,传统疗法难以奏效。体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)在这类人群中的安全性仍不明确。我们的目的是研究严重创伤性脑损伤患者接受 ECMO 后的疗效与传统疗法的比较:我们利用创伤质量改进计划(2017-2020 年)进行了一项回顾性队列研究。我们确定了 18 岁或 18 岁以上的重度 TBI 患者(头部简略损伤评分≥3),这些患者接受了 ECMO 或在住院期间出现院内心脏或急性呼吸窘迫综合征。研究排除了以下患者:到达时无生命迹象、院前心脏骤停、有无法挽救的损伤、到达后 48 小时内被转出、或作为转院病人接收并在到达后 12 小时内死亡的患者。结果包括死亡率、院内并发症和重症监护室住院时间。为了考虑患者和损伤特征,我们采用了 1:1 的倾向匹配。我们对 ECMO 患者进行了亚组分析,比较了接受抗凝药物治疗和未接受抗凝药物治疗的患者:我们确定了 10,065 名患者,其中 221 人(2.2%)接受了 ECMO。在 134 对倾向匹配样本中,死亡率没有差异。体外膜氧合与较高的脑血管意外发生率(9% 对 1%,P = 0.006)和较低的呼吸机相关肺炎发生率有关。在对64对配对患者进行的亚组分析中,接受抗凝治疗的患者死亡率较低,计划外返回手术室的比例较高,通气时间和重症监护室住院时间较长:严重创伤性脑损伤患者使用体外膜肺氧合与死亡率升高无关,应将其视为对此类患者的潜在干预措施。全身抗凝治疗对死亡率有益处,但还需要进一步研究其对神经系统预后的影响,以及适当的抗凝剂量和时机:证据级别:治疗;IV 级。
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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
11.80%
发文量
637
审稿时长
2.7 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery® is designed to provide the scientific basis to optimize care of the severely injured and critically ill surgical patient. Thus, the Journal has a high priority for basic and translation research to fulfill this objectives. Additionally, the Journal is enthusiastic to publish randomized prospective clinical studies to establish care predicated on a mechanistic foundation. Finally, the Journal is seeking systematic reviews, guidelines and algorithms that incorporate the best evidence available.
期刊最新文献
Closer to home: Managing more than three rib fractures at level IV trauma centers. How many minutes matter: Association between time saved with air medical transport and survival in trauma patients. Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta: What You Need to Know. Not all call is created equally: The impact of culture and sex on burnout related to in-house call. Predictive value of platelet function assays in traumatic brain injury patients on antiplatelet therapy.
×
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