4.7 Article

Organ Allocation Waiting Time During Extracorporeal Bridge to Lung Transplant Affects Outcomes

期刊

CHEST
卷 144, 期 3, 页码 1018-1025

出版社

AMER COLL CHEST PHYSICIANS
DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-1141

关键词

-

资金

  1. Regione Lombardia Project for Independent Research in the Intensive Care Field [13465/2010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to lung transplant (LTX) is still being debated. Methods: We performed a retrospective two-center analysis of the relationship between ECMO bridging duration and survival in 25 patients. Further survival analysis was obtained by dividing the patients according to waiting time on ECMO: up to 14 days (Early group) or longer (Late group). We also analyzed the impact of the ventilation strategy during ECMO bridging (ie, spontaneous breathing and noninvasive ventilation [NIV] or intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV]). Results: Seventeen of 25 patients underwent a transplant (with a 76% 1-year survival), whereas eight patients died during bridging. In the 17 patients who underwent a transplant, mortality was positively related to waiting days until LTX (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 per day; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23; P=.02), and the Early group showed better Kaplan-Meier curves (P=.02), higher 1-year survival rates (100% vs 50%, P=.03), and lower morbidity (days on IMV and length of stay in ICU and hospital). During the bridge to transplant, mortality increased steadily with time. Considering the overall outcome of the bridging program (25 patients), bridge duration adversely affected survival (HR, 1.06 per day; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P=.015) and 1-year survival (Early, 82% vs Late, 29%; P=.015). Morbidity indexes were lower in patients treated with NIV during the bridge. Conclusions: The duration of the ECMO bridge is a relevant cofactor in the mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients awaiting organ allocation. The NIV strategy was associated with a less complicated clinical course after LTX.

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

4.7
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