4.4 Article

What Is the Optimal Blood Pressure on Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation? Impact of Mean Arterial Pressure on Survival

Journal

ASAIO JOURNAL
Volume 65, Issue 4, Pages 336-341

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000824

Keywords

mean arterial pressure; ECMO; survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Blood pressure management is crucial for patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO). Lower pressure can lead to end-organ malperfusion, whereas higher pressure may compete with ECMO flow and cardiac output. The impact of mean arterial pressure (MAP) on outcomes of patients on VA ECMO was evaluated. Patients who were supported on VA ECMO from September 2010 to March 2016 were retrospectively analyzed for average MAP throughout their course on ECMO, excluding the first and last day. Survival and complications observed during ECMO were investigated by classifying patients into groups based on their average MAP. A total of 116 patients were identified. Average MAP was significantly higher in patients who survived to discharge (82 +/- 5.6 vs. 78 +/- 5.5 mm Hg, p = 0.0003). There was a positive association between MAP and survival. Survival was best with MAP higher than 90 mm Hg (71%) and worst with MAP less than 70 mm Hg, where no patient survived. MAP was an independent predictor of survival to discharge by multivariate analysis (odds ratio 1.17, p = 0.013). Vasopressors were used more frequently in patients with lower pressure (coefficient -3.14, p = 0.005) without affecting survival (odds ratio 0.95, p = 0.95). Although the MAP did not affect the probability of strokes or bleeding complications, patients with a higher MAP had a lower incidence of kidney injury (p = 0.007). In conclusion, survival of patients on VA ECMO was significantly greater with a higher MAP, without being affected by prolonged vasopressor use.

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