4.7 Article

Nosocomial Infections in Adult Cardiogenic Shock Patients Supported by Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

期刊

CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 55, 期 12, 页码 1633-1641

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis783

关键词

-

资金

  1. MAQUET

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Incidence and impact on adult patients' outcomes of nosocomial infections (NIs) occurring during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for refractory cardiogenic shock have rarely been described. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of a large series of patients who received VA-ECMO in our intensive care unit (ICU) from January 2003 through December 2009. Incidence, types, risk factors, and impact on outcomes of NIs occurring during ECMO support were analyzed. Results. Among 220 patients (49 +/- 16 years old, simplified acute physiology score (SAPS) II 61 +/- 20) who underwent ECMO support for >48 hours for a total of 2942 ECMO days, 142 (64%) developed NIs. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), bloodstream infections, cannula infections, and mediastinitis infections occurred in 55%, 18%, 10% and 11% of the patients, respectively. More critical condition at ICU admission, but not antibiotics at the time of ECMO cannulation, was associated with subsequently developing NIs (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], .50-1.05; P = .09). Infected patients had longer durations of mechanical ventilation, ECMO support, and hospital stays. Independent predictors of death were infection with severe sepsis or septic shock (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.26-2.94; P = .002) and SAPS II, whereas immunosuppression and myocarditis as the reason for ECMO support were associated with better outcomes. Conclusions. Cardiogenic shock patients who received the latest generation VA-ECMO still had a high risk of developing NIs, particularly VAP. Strategies aimed at preventing these infections may improve the outcomes of these critically ill patients.

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