4.6 Article

The Italian ECMO network experience during the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic: preparation for severe respiratory emergency outbreaks

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 37, Issue 9, Pages 1447-1457

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-011-2301-6

Keywords

Viral infection; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Preparedness plan; ARDS

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In view of the expected 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, the Italian Health Authorities set up a national referral network of selected intensive care units (ICU) able to provide advanced respiratory care up to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We describe the organization and results of the network, known as ECMOnet. The network consisted of 14 ICUs with ECMO capability and a national call center. The network was set up to centralize all severe patients to the ECMOnet centers assuring safe transfer. An ad hoc committee defined criteria for both patient transfer and ECMO institutions. Between August 2009 and March 2010, 153 critically ill patients (53% referred from other hospitals) were admitted to the ECMOnet ICU with suspected H1N1. Sixty patients (48 of the referred patients, 49 with confirmed H1N1 diagnosis) received ECMO according to ECMOnet criteria. All referred patients were successfully transferred to the ECMOnet centers; 28 were transferred while on ECMO. Survival to hospital discharge in patients receiving ECMO was 68%. Survival of patients receiving ECMO within 7 days from the onset of mechanical ventilation was 77%. The length of mechanical ventilation prior to ECMO was an independent predictor of mortality. A network organization based on preemptive patient centralization allowed a high survival rate and provided effective and safe referral of patients with severe H1N1-suspected ARDS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available