4.6 Article

Determinants of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Transfer during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in an Experimental Model of Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054954

关键词

-

资金

  1. Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has gained renewed interest in the treatment of respiratory failure since the advent of the modern polymethylpentene membranes. Limited information exists, however, on the performance of these membranes in terms of gas transfers during multiple organ failure (MOF). We investigated determinants of oxygen and carbon dioxide transfer as well as biochemical alterations after the circulation of blood through the circuit in a pig model under ECMO support before and after induction of MOF. A predefined sequence of blood and sweep flows was tested before and after the induction of MOF with fecal peritonitis and saline lavage lung injury. In the multivariate analysis, oxygen transfer had a positive association with blood flow (slope = 66, p<0.001) and a negative association with premembrane PaCO2 (slope = -0.96, P = 0.001) and SatO(2) (slope = 21.7, p<0.001). Carbon dioxide transfer had a positive association with blood flow (slope = 17, p<0.001), gas flow (slope = 33, p<0.001), pre-membrane PaCO2 (slope = 1.2, p<0.001) and a negative association with the hemoglobin (slope = -3.478, P = 0.042). We found an increase in pH in the baseline from 7.50[7.46,7.54] to 7.60[7.55,7.65] (p<0.001), and during the MOF from 7.19[6.92,7.32] to 7.41[7.13,7.5] (p<0.001). Likewise, the PCO2 fell in the baseline from 35 [32,39] to 25 [22,27] mmHg (p<0.001), and during the MOF from 59 [47,91] to 34 [28,45] mmHg (p<0.001). In conclusion, both oxygen and carbon dioxide transfers were significantly determined by blood flow. Oxygen transfer was modulated by the pre-membrane SatO(2) and CO2, while carbon dioxide transfer was affected by the gas flow, pre-membrane CO2 and hemoglobin.

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