4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: does timing of repair matter?

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 44, Issue 6, Pages 1165-1172

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2009.02.022

Keywords

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [UL1RR024986, UL1 RR024986] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with high mortality. Timing of CDH repair relative to ECMO therapy remains controversial. Our hypothesis was that survival would significantly differ between those who underwent repair during ECMO and those Who underwent repair after ECMO therapy. Methods: We examined deidentified data from the CDH study group (CDHSG) registry from 1995 to 2005 oil patients who underwent repair and ECMO therapy (n = 636). We used Cox regression analysis to assess differences in Survival between those who underwent repair during and after ECMO. Results: Five covariates were significantly associated with mortality as follows: timing of repair relative to ECMO (P = .03), defect side (P = .01), ECMO run length (P < .01), need for patch repair (P = .03), birth weight (P < .01), and Apgar score at 5 minutes (P = .03). Birth year, inborn vs transfer status, diaphragmatic agenesis, age at repair, and presence of cardiac or chromosomal abnormalities were not associated with survival. Repair after ECMO therapy was associated with increased survival relative to repair oil ECMO (hazard ratio, 1.407; P = .03). Conclusion: These data suggest that CDH repair after ECMO therapy is associated with improved survival compared to repair oil ECMO, despite controlling for factors associated with the severity of CDH. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available