4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: How early can we repair?

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 54, Issue 1, Pages 50-54

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.10.038

Keywords

Congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH); Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); Repair; Outcomes; Prenatal diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The benefits to early repair (<72 h postcannulation) of infants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are increasingly recognized. Yet it is not known if even earlier repair (<24 h) results in comparable or improved patient outcomes. The goal of this study was to compare super-early (<24 h) to early repair (24-72 h) of CDH patients on ECMO. Methods: A retrospective review of infants with CDH placed on ECMO (2004-2017; n = 72) was performed. Data collected on the patients repaired while on ECMO within 72 h of cannulation (n 33) included pre- and postnatal disease severity stratification variables and postnatal outcomes. Comparison groups were those patients repaired within 24 h of cannulation (n = 14) and those repaired between 24 and 72 h postcannulation (n = 19). Results: Patients undergoing super-early (<24 h) repair had an average survival of 71.4% compared to the average survival of 59.7% in the early repair group. Pre- and postnatal variables predicting disease severity were not significantly different between the groups. Mean hospital stays, ventilator days, and cannulation days were statistically similar between the groups. Conclusions: Repair of patients with CDH patients on ECMO at less than 24 h postcannulation achieves outcomes that are comparable to those of repair between 24 and 72 h. While the present data suggest that there is nut a too early time point for CDH repair on ECMO, larger multicenter studies are needed to validate our findings and determine the overall benefits. Type of study: Retrospective comparative study. (C) 2018 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