4.6 Article

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe influenza A (H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational comparative study

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 36, 期 11, 页码 1899-1905

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-010-2021-3

关键词

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Influenza A (H1N1); Pneumonia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare characteristics, clinical evolution and outcome in adult patients with influenza A (H1N1) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A prospective observational study of patients treated in Marseille South Hospital from October 2009 to January 2010 for confirmed influenza A (H1N1)-related ARDS. Clinical features, pulmonary dysfunction and mortality were compared between patients treated with and without ECMO. Of 18 patients admitted, 6 were treated with veno-venous and 3 with veno-arterial ECMO after median (interquartile, IQR) duration of mechanical ventilation of 10 (6-96) h. Six ECMO were initiated in a referral hospital by a mobile team, a median (IQR) of 3 (2-4) h after phone contact. Before ECMO, patients had severe respiratory failure with median (IQR) PaO(2) to FiO(2) ratio of 52 (50-60) mmHg and PaCO(2) of 85 (69-91) mmHg. Patients treated with or without ECMO had the same hospital mortality rate (56%, 5/9). Duration of ECMO therapy was 9 (4-14) days in survivors and 5 (2-25) days in non-survivors. Early improvement of PaO(2) to FiO(2) ratio was greater in ECMO survivors than non-survivors after ECMO initiation [295 (151-439) versus 131 (106-144) mmHg, p < 0.05]. Haemorrhagic complications occurred in four patients under ECMO, but none required surgical treatment. ECMO may be an effective salvage treatment for patients with influenza A (H1N1)-related ARDS presenting rapid refractory respiratory failure, particularly when provided by a mobile team allowing early cannulation prior to transfer to a reference centre.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据