Performance and Safety of an Integrated Portable Extracorporeal Life Support System for Adults

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated when conventional measures fail to support a patient during cardiac or respiratory failure. Due to the complicated nature of ECMO, patients often require transport to a tertiary care center. This study retrospectively compared the performance o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of extra-corporeal technology 2015-03, Vol.47 (1), p.38-43
Hauptverfasser: Alwardt, Cory M, Wilson, Donald S, Alore, Michelle L, Lanza, Louis A, Devaleria, Patrick A, Pajaro, Octavio E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 43
container_issue 1
container_start_page 38
container_title The Journal of extra-corporeal technology
container_volume 47
creator Alwardt, Cory M
Wilson, Donald S
Alore, Michelle L
Lanza, Louis A
Devaleria, Patrick A
Pajaro, Octavio E
description Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated when conventional measures fail to support a patient during cardiac or respiratory failure. Due to the complicated nature of ECMO, patients often require transport to a tertiary care center. This study retrospectively compared the performance of the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system with a previously used ECMO circuit when transporting adult patients on venoarterial ECMO between facilities. Two ECMO circuits were compared for performance: 1) the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system and 2) the "standard" circuit consisting of a Thoratec CentriMag centrifugal pump, Maquet Quadrox-D oxygenator, and a Terumo CDI-500 in-line blood gas analyzer. After analyzing data from 16 patients (eight patients supported with each ECMO system), no differences in patient demographics, percentage of patients successfully weaned from ECMO, percentage of patients surviving to discharge, duration supported on the initial ECMO system, or total duration of ECMO were noted. No patient deaths were related to circuit failure or circuit disruptions in either group. Analysis of the performance of the ECMO circuits and the resulting patient status showed few significant differences between ECMO groups (Cardiohelp™ vs. standard circuit) and time points (the first 8 hours vs. a 24-hour time point). The statistically significant differences were not concerning in terms of appropriate medical support or patient safety. Of interest, the transmembrane pressure was significantly lower for the Cardiohelp™ module vs. the standard oxygenator during the first 8 hours (20.1 [5.3] vs. 37.1 [7.1] mmHg; p < .001) and at 24 hours (21.3 [3.8] vs. 34.8 [7.9] mmHg; p = .001). The Cardiohelp™ portable life support system provides safe and reliable support for adult patients on ECMO during interhospital patient transport as compared to the standard circuit.
doi_str_mv 10.1051/ject/201547038
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4566819</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1715915134</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3058-386c08ce5cd053f6abbb263d5938d92c8c55807418703cc07e624c4f289a58f73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkc1LxDAQxYMoun5cPUqOXqpJ06TJRRDxCxYUVq-GNJ1opW3WJBX3vzeiLnoahvnNmzc8hA4pOaGE09NXsOm0JJRXNWFyA81KJVQhlSCbaEZIWRYZkztoN8ZXQgQljG6jnVIwRUQtZ-jpHoLzYTCjBWzGFi-Mg7TC3uUO344JnoNJ0OJ7H5JpesCXHykY68PSBzA9nncO8GJa5jbhxSomGHAWxOft1Ke4j7ac6SMc_NQ99Hh1-XBxU8zvrm8vzueFZdlewaSwRFrgtiWcOWGapskeW66YbFVppeVckrqiMn9pLalBlJWtXCmV4dLVbA-dfesup2aA1sKYTfZ6GbrBhJX2ptP_J2P3op_9u664EJKqLHD8IxD82wQx6aGLFvrejOCnqGlNuaKcsiqjJ9-oDT7GAG59hhL9FYr-CkWvQ8kLR3_NrfHfFNgnMqqJiQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1715915134</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance and Safety of an Integrated Portable Extracorporeal Life Support System for Adults</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Alwardt, Cory M ; Wilson, Donald S ; Alore, Michelle L ; Lanza, Louis A ; Devaleria, Patrick A ; Pajaro, Octavio E</creator><creatorcontrib>Alwardt, Cory M ; Wilson, Donald S ; Alore, Michelle L ; Lanza, Louis A ; Devaleria, Patrick A ; Pajaro, Octavio E</creatorcontrib><description>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated when conventional measures fail to support a patient during cardiac or respiratory failure. Due to the complicated nature of ECMO, patients often require transport to a tertiary care center. This study retrospectively compared the performance of the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system with a previously used ECMO circuit when transporting adult patients on venoarterial ECMO between facilities. Two ECMO circuits were compared for performance: 1) the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system and 2) the "standard" circuit consisting of a Thoratec CentriMag centrifugal pump, Maquet Quadrox-D oxygenator, and a Terumo CDI-500 in-line blood gas analyzer. After analyzing data from 16 patients (eight patients supported with each ECMO system), no differences in patient demographics, percentage of patients successfully weaned from ECMO, percentage of patients surviving to discharge, duration supported on the initial ECMO system, or total duration of ECMO were noted. No patient deaths were related to circuit failure or circuit disruptions in either group. Analysis of the performance of the ECMO circuits and the resulting patient status showed few significant differences between ECMO groups (Cardiohelp™ vs. standard circuit) and time points (the first 8 hours vs. a 24-hour time point). The statistically significant differences were not concerning in terms of appropriate medical support or patient safety. Of interest, the transmembrane pressure was significantly lower for the Cardiohelp™ module vs. the standard oxygenator during the first 8 hours (20.1 [5.3] vs. 37.1 [7.1] mmHg; p &lt; .001) and at 24 hours (21.3 [3.8] vs. 34.8 [7.9] mmHg; p = .001). The Cardiohelp™ portable life support system provides safe and reliable support for adult patients on ECMO during interhospital patient transport as compared to the standard circuit.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1058</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2969-8960</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1051/ject/201547038</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26390678</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology</publisher><subject>Adult ; Disposable Equipment ; Equipment Design ; Equipment Failure Analysis ; Equipment Safety ; Extracorporeal Circulation - instrumentation ; Female ; Health technology assessment ; Humans ; Life Support Systems - instrumentation ; Male ; Miniaturization ; Original ; Systems Integration ; Transportation of Patients - methods ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The Journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2015-03, Vol.47 (1), p.38-43</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2015 AMSECT 2015</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3058-386c08ce5cd053f6abbb263d5938d92c8c55807418703cc07e624c4f289a58f73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3058-386c08ce5cd053f6abbb263d5938d92c8c55807418703cc07e624c4f289a58f73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566819/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566819/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26390678$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Alwardt, Cory M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Donald S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alore, Michelle L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanza, Louis A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Devaleria, Patrick A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pajaro, Octavio E</creatorcontrib><title>Performance and Safety of an Integrated Portable Extracorporeal Life Support System for Adults</title><title>The Journal of extra-corporeal technology</title><addtitle>J Extra Corpor Technol</addtitle><description>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated when conventional measures fail to support a patient during cardiac or respiratory failure. Due to the complicated nature of ECMO, patients often require transport to a tertiary care center. This study retrospectively compared the performance of the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system with a previously used ECMO circuit when transporting adult patients on venoarterial ECMO between facilities. Two ECMO circuits were compared for performance: 1) the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system and 2) the "standard" circuit consisting of a Thoratec CentriMag centrifugal pump, Maquet Quadrox-D oxygenator, and a Terumo CDI-500 in-line blood gas analyzer. After analyzing data from 16 patients (eight patients supported with each ECMO system), no differences in patient demographics, percentage of patients successfully weaned from ECMO, percentage of patients surviving to discharge, duration supported on the initial ECMO system, or total duration of ECMO were noted. No patient deaths were related to circuit failure or circuit disruptions in either group. Analysis of the performance of the ECMO circuits and the resulting patient status showed few significant differences between ECMO groups (Cardiohelp™ vs. standard circuit) and time points (the first 8 hours vs. a 24-hour time point). The statistically significant differences were not concerning in terms of appropriate medical support or patient safety. Of interest, the transmembrane pressure was significantly lower for the Cardiohelp™ module vs. the standard oxygenator during the first 8 hours (20.1 [5.3] vs. 37.1 [7.1] mmHg; p &lt; .001) and at 24 hours (21.3 [3.8] vs. 34.8 [7.9] mmHg; p = .001). The Cardiohelp™ portable life support system provides safe and reliable support for adult patients on ECMO during interhospital patient transport as compared to the standard circuit.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Disposable Equipment</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Equipment Failure Analysis</subject><subject>Equipment Safety</subject><subject>Extracorporeal Circulation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Life Support Systems - instrumentation</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Miniaturization</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Systems Integration</subject><subject>Transportation of Patients - methods</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0022-1058</issn><issn>2969-8960</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkc1LxDAQxYMoun5cPUqOXqpJ06TJRRDxCxYUVq-GNJ1opW3WJBX3vzeiLnoahvnNmzc8hA4pOaGE09NXsOm0JJRXNWFyA81KJVQhlSCbaEZIWRYZkztoN8ZXQgQljG6jnVIwRUQtZ-jpHoLzYTCjBWzGFi-Mg7TC3uUO344JnoNJ0OJ7H5JpesCXHykY68PSBzA9nncO8GJa5jbhxSomGHAWxOft1Ke4j7ac6SMc_NQ99Hh1-XBxU8zvrm8vzueFZdlewaSwRFrgtiWcOWGapskeW66YbFVppeVckrqiMn9pLalBlJWtXCmV4dLVbA-dfesup2aA1sKYTfZ6GbrBhJX2ptP_J2P3op_9u664EJKqLHD8IxD82wQx6aGLFvrejOCnqGlNuaKcsiqjJ9-oDT7GAG59hhL9FYr-CkWvQ8kLR3_NrfHfFNgnMqqJiQ</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Alwardt, Cory M</creator><creator>Wilson, Donald S</creator><creator>Alore, Michelle L</creator><creator>Lanza, Louis A</creator><creator>Devaleria, Patrick A</creator><creator>Pajaro, Octavio E</creator><general>American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Performance and Safety of an Integrated Portable Extracorporeal Life Support System for Adults</title><author>Alwardt, Cory M ; Wilson, Donald S ; Alore, Michelle L ; Lanza, Louis A ; Devaleria, Patrick A ; Pajaro, Octavio E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3058-386c08ce5cd053f6abbb263d5938d92c8c55807418703cc07e624c4f289a58f73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Disposable Equipment</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Equipment Failure Analysis</topic><topic>Equipment Safety</topic><topic>Extracorporeal Circulation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Life Support Systems - instrumentation</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Miniaturization</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Systems Integration</topic><topic>Transportation of Patients - methods</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alwardt, Cory M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Donald S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alore, Michelle L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanza, Louis A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Devaleria, Patrick A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pajaro, Octavio E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of extra-corporeal technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alwardt, Cory M</au><au>Wilson, Donald S</au><au>Alore, Michelle L</au><au>Lanza, Louis A</au><au>Devaleria, Patrick A</au><au>Pajaro, Octavio E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance and Safety of an Integrated Portable Extracorporeal Life Support System for Adults</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of extra-corporeal technology</jtitle><addtitle>J Extra Corpor Technol</addtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>38</spage><epage>43</epage><pages>38-43</pages><issn>0022-1058</issn><eissn>2969-8960</eissn><abstract>Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated when conventional measures fail to support a patient during cardiac or respiratory failure. Due to the complicated nature of ECMO, patients often require transport to a tertiary care center. This study retrospectively compared the performance of the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system with a previously used ECMO circuit when transporting adult patients on venoarterial ECMO between facilities. Two ECMO circuits were compared for performance: 1) the Cardiohelp™ (Maquet) life support system and 2) the "standard" circuit consisting of a Thoratec CentriMag centrifugal pump, Maquet Quadrox-D oxygenator, and a Terumo CDI-500 in-line blood gas analyzer. After analyzing data from 16 patients (eight patients supported with each ECMO system), no differences in patient demographics, percentage of patients successfully weaned from ECMO, percentage of patients surviving to discharge, duration supported on the initial ECMO system, or total duration of ECMO were noted. No patient deaths were related to circuit failure or circuit disruptions in either group. Analysis of the performance of the ECMO circuits and the resulting patient status showed few significant differences between ECMO groups (Cardiohelp™ vs. standard circuit) and time points (the first 8 hours vs. a 24-hour time point). The statistically significant differences were not concerning in terms of appropriate medical support or patient safety. Of interest, the transmembrane pressure was significantly lower for the Cardiohelp™ module vs. the standard oxygenator during the first 8 hours (20.1 [5.3] vs. 37.1 [7.1] mmHg; p &lt; .001) and at 24 hours (21.3 [3.8] vs. 34.8 [7.9] mmHg; p = .001). The Cardiohelp™ portable life support system provides safe and reliable support for adult patients on ECMO during interhospital patient transport as compared to the standard circuit.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology</pub><pmid>26390678</pmid><doi>10.1051/ject/201547038</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-1058
ispartof The Journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2015-03, Vol.47 (1), p.38-43
issn 0022-1058
2969-8960
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4566819
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Adult
Disposable Equipment
Equipment Design
Equipment Failure Analysis
Equipment Safety
Extracorporeal Circulation - instrumentation
Female
Health technology assessment
Humans
Life Support Systems - instrumentation
Male
Miniaturization
Original
Systems Integration
Transportation of Patients - methods
Treatment Outcome
title Performance and Safety of an Integrated Portable Extracorporeal Life Support System for Adults
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T18%3A16%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20and%20Safety%20of%20an%20Integrated%20Portable%20Extracorporeal%20Life%20Support%20System%20for%20Adults&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20extra-corporeal%20technology&rft.au=Alwardt,%20Cory%20M&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=38&rft.epage=43&rft.pages=38-43&rft.issn=0022-1058&rft.eissn=2969-8960&rft_id=info:doi/10.1051/ject/201547038&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1715915134%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1715915134&rft_id=info:pmid/26390678&rfr_iscdi=true