比较静脉-静脉-动脉体外膜氧合治疗新生儿和儿童呼吸衰竭的结果:体外生命支持组织注册的回顾性回顾

JamieM Furlong-Dillard, YanaB Feygin, RonW Reeder, JohnnaS Wilson, DavidG Blauvelt, DeannaR Todd-Tzanetos, StewartR Carter, PetaM. A. Alexander, DavidK Bailly
{"title":"比较静脉-静脉-动脉体外膜氧合治疗新生儿和儿童呼吸衰竭的结果:体外生命支持组织注册的回顾性回顾","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing outcomes of venovenous versus venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in neonatal and pediatric respiratory failure: A retrospective review of Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Left main bronchus compression by massive pericardial effusion: A rare cause of respiratory distress in an infant: A case report Challenges in estimating the severity of kidney dysfunction in critically ill children Neuroparalytic snakebite resulting in cerebral salt wasting and refractory hyponatremia: A case report Takotsubo cardiomyopathy in a 7-month-old infant with familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis: A case report Evaluating the impact of intubation pillow on laryngoscopy grade in children: A Randomized controlled trial
×
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