4.3 Article

Impact of extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation on outcome of aluminium phosphide poisoning complicated with myocardial dysfunction

期刊

CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 57, 期 11, 页码 1095-1102

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2019.1584297

关键词

Aluminium phosphide poisoning; cardiogenic shock; myocardial dysfunction; SOFA score

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aluminium phosphide (AlP) poisoning is associated with a high mortality rate when patients are complicated with myocardial dysfunction and refractory shock or severe metabolic acidosis. We studied the role of veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in patients of AlP poisoning induced myocardial dysfunction. Methods and results: This is a tertiary care, single-centre, retrospective study. Between January 2011 and June 2016, total of 107 patients with AlP poisoning were identified and of those 67 were categorised in high-risk category as per the criteria. The in-hospital mortality of patients who received ECMO (n = 35) was compared to those who received conventional treatment (n = 32) only. The use of ECMO in addition to conventional treatment has reduced the in-hospital mortality from 84.4% to 40% (odds ratio: 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.73). Among survivors, the ECMO group had a significantly lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; median: 24%; IQR: 22-29 vs. median: 32%; IQR: 32-33.5; p < .003) but a non-significantly higher LVEF at the time of discharge (median: 52%; IQR: 48-60 vs. median: 48%; IQR: 47-49; p: .064) than did the conventional group. On logistic regression analysis the higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, lower pH and the non-usage of ECMO were found to be the independent predictors of mortality. Conclusion: The use of ECMO in high-risk patient of AlP poisoning has resulted in a significant reduction in the mortality. A high baseline SOFA score has been found to be the independent predictor of mortality.

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

4.3
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