4.1 Article

A retrospective cohort analysis of percutaneous versus side-graft perfusion techniques for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock

期刊

PERFUSION-UK
卷 32, 期 5, 页码 363-371

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0267659116683792

关键词

heart failure; cardiogenic shock; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; assisted circulation; vascular complications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study was designed to compare vascular complications and the outcomes of ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous cannulation with distal perfusion catheter (PC-DP) and arterial side-graft perfusion (SGP) techniques in patients who require veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study of consequtive patients with RCS treated with VA-ECMO at a single transplant center from March 2010 until August 2015. Overall, 148 patients underwent VA-ECMO for RCS (99 men, aged 56.6 12.0 years; BSA, 1.85 0.19). Patients were categorized based on VA-ECMO perfusion technique into PC-DP via femoral artery and SGP via axillary/femoral artery groups. Results: The median duration of VA-ECMO support was 5 days (range, 8 hours-80 days). Hospital mortality (PC-DP group, 54.7%; SGP group, 64.4%; p=0.23) and overall ECMO survival (PC-DP group, 36.9%; SGP group, 32.2%; p=0.47) was similar between the groups. There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of acute limb ischemia (PC-DP group, 4/75, 5.3%; SGP group, 2/73, 2.7%; p=0.68). However, the rate of surgical/cannulation site bleeding (PC-DP, 9/75 (12%) vs SGP, 18/73 (24.7%), p=0.05) and hyperperfusion syndrome (PC-DP, 2/75 (2.7%) vs SGP, 22/73 (30.1%),p=0.001) were higher in the SGP group than in the PC-DP group. Conclusions: We observed no significant difference in major vascular complications or survival between patients who underwent the PC-DP technique and those who underwent arterial SGP.

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

4.1
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