Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation versus conventional mechanical ventilation to treat refractory hypoxemia in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study

静脉-静脉体外膜肺氧合与常规机械通气治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者难治性低氧血症的疗效比较:一项回顾性队列研究

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment outcome of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at a referral center that started offering VV-EMCO support in 2010. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled adults with severe ARDS (PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio of <100 with FiO(2) of ≥90 or Murray score of ≥3) who were admitted to the intensive care unit of Siriraj Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand) from January 2010 to December 2018. All patients were treated using a low tidal volume (TV) and optimal positive end-expiratory pressure. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (ECMO, n = 30; mechanical ventilation, n = 34) were recruited. There was no significant difference in the baseline PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio (67.2 ± 25.7 vs. 76.6 ± 16.0), FiO(2) (97 ± 9 vs. 94 ± 8), or Murray score (3.4 ± 0.5 vs. 3.3 ± 0.5) between the ECMO and mechanical ventilation groups. The hospital mortality rate was also not significantly different between the two groups (ECMO, 20/30 [66.7%] vs. mechanical ventilation, 24/34 [70.6%]). Patients who underwent ECMO were ventilated with a significantly lower TV than patients who underwent mechanical ventilation (3.8 ± 1.8 vs. 6.6 ± 1.4 mL, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although VV-ECMO promoted lower-TV ventilation, it did not improve the in-hospital mortality rate. Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04031794).

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。