4.6 Article

Outcomes of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Lung Transplantation

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 107, 期 5, 页码 1456-1463

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.01.032

关键词

-

资金

  1. ALung Technologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to lung transplantation (BTT) has become a critical component of caring for patients with end-stage lung disease. This study examined outcomes of patients who received ECMO as a BTT. Methods. Statistical analysis was performed on data gathered retrospectively from the electronic medical records of adult patients who received ECMO as BTT at Columbia University Medical Center from April 2009 through July 2018. Results. A total of 121 adult patients were placed on ECMO as BTT, and 70 patients (59%) were successfully bridged to lung transplantation. Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, unplanned endotracheal intubation, renal replacement therapy, and cerebrovascular accident were identified as independent predictors of unsuccessful BTT. Ambulation was the only independent predictor of successful BTT (odds ratio, 7.579; 95% confidence interval, 2.158 to 26.615; p = 0.002). Among the 64 patients (91%) who survived to hospital discharge, survival was 88% at 1 year and 83% at 3 years. Propensity matching between BTT and non-BTT lung transplant recipients did not show a significant difference in survival (log-rank = 0.53) despite significant differences in the lung allocation score (median, 92.2 [interquartile range, 89.0 to 94.2] vs 49.6 [interquartile range, 40.6 to 72.3], p < 0.01). Conclusions. ECMO can be used successfully to bridge patients with end-stage lung disease to lung transplantation. When implemented by an experienced team with adherence to stringent protocols and patient selection, outcomes in BTT patients were comparable to patients who did not receive pretransplant support. (C) 2019 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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