4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The use of ECMO for gastroschisis and omphalocele: Two decades of experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
Volume 52, Issue 6, Pages 984-988

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2017.03.023

Keywords

Omphalocele; Gastroschisis; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Respiratory failure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The aim was to review the respiratory failure causes and outcomes of infants with omphalocele or gastroschisis receiving ECMO and reported to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). Methods: Gastroschisis and omphalocele infants supported with ECMO and reported to the ELSO Registry between 1992 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical variables, diagnosis of respiratory failure (pulmonary hypertension (PHN), congenital heart defects (CHD), congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), and sepsis), and out comeswere recorded. Univariate analysis was performed using Student's t-test for continuous or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Results: Fifty-two infants with gastroschisis (41) (79%) or omphalocele (11) (21%) were identified. The survival to discharge rate of 51% for gastroschisis remained stable and was significantly higher (P = 0.05). The overall mortality rate for omphalocele was 82%. Omphalocele had significantly more PHN (P < 0.01), CDH (P < 0.01), and multiple anomalies (P = 0.04) had significantly more sepsis (P = 0.02), and none had a CDH. Conclusion: Infants with gastroschisis requiring ECMO support have significantly better survival than omphaloceles, and respiratory failure is significantly associated with sepsis. The majority of omphalocele infants die despite ECMO, and respiratory failure is associated PHN and CDH. The association of omphalocele, PHN, and CDH merits further investigation. (C) 2017 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