4.5 Article

Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure reduces right ventricular dysfunction in COVID-19 patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective single-center study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154274

关键词

ECMO; Mechanical ventilation; Positive end-expiratory pressure; COVID-19; Manometry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the effect of PEEP titration using esophageal manometry on pulmonary and cardiac function in VV ECMO patients. The results showed that patients with the optimal PEEP strategy had higher applied PEEP levels, lower incidence of RV dysfunction with low pulmonary arterial pressure, and higher survival.
While mechanical ventilation practices on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) are variable, most institutions utilize a lung rest strategy utilizing relatively low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The effect of PEEP titration using esophageal manometry during VV ECMO on pulmonary and cardiac function is unknown. This was a retrospective study of 69 patients initiated on VV ECMO between March 2020 through November 2021. Patients underwent standard PEEP (typically 10 cm H2O) or optimal PEEP (PEEP titrated to an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure 0-3 cm H2O) throughout the ECMO run. The optimal PEEP strategy had higher levels of applied PEEP (17.9 vs. 10.8 cm H2O on day 2 of ECMO), decreased incidence of hemodynamically significant RV dysfunction (4.55% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.0001), and higher survival to dec-annulation (72.7% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.022). Survival to discharge did not reach statistical significance (61.4% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.211). In univariate logistic regression analysis, optimal PEEP was associated with less hemody-namically significant RV dysfunction with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01-0.27, p = 0.0008) and increased survival to decannulation with an OR of 3.39 (95% CI 1.23-9.79), p = 0.02), though other confounding factors may have contributed.

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

4.5
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