4.6 Article

Bridging the gap: safety and outcomes of intensivist-led ECMO retrievals

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1239006

关键词

ECMO retrieval; ECMO transport; ECLS; hub and spoke model; ECPR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study shows that non-cardiothoracic surgeons can successfully perform remote ECMO cannulations and retrievals with low complication rates.
PurposeMost extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulations are performed by cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS). Due to an increase in utilization of ECMO and limited availability of CTS, there is a mismatch between ECMO demand and CTS accessibility for remote cannulations. We report our intensivist-led program's experience in remote ECMO cannulations, retrievals, complications, and outcomes.Materials and methodsA prospective, single-center, observational study was performed on patients that required ECMO cannulation at the referring facilities and were transported to our institution between program initiation, on October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2022. Results were presented as mean & PLUSMN; SD, median (min - max) or number (%).ResultsSince program commencement, 305 patients were accepted for ECMO retrieval. Three hundred and three patients were placed on ECMO at the 47 referring hospitals among 5 states. In our study, 185 (61%) patients required veno-arterial ECMO and 115 (38%) were placed on veno-venous ECMO. Three patients (1%) were cannulated for veno-arteriovenous ECMO. Twenty patients were cannulated under cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. Most of the patients were transported by ambulance (79%), 14% by helicopter, and 7% by airplane. Six out of the 303 patients did not leave the referring facility. All patients that left the referring hospitals arrived safely to our institution. No major complications occurred in route.ConclusionOur study's findings indicate that non-CTS physicians can successfully cannulate and retrieve patients with a low complication profile.

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