Outcomes of out-of-hospital extracorporeal membrane oxygenation transfers: significance of initiation site and personnel
Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an accepted therapy option for refractory cardiac or respiratory failure. The outcomes of cases initiated at non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers and subsequently transported for management to an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Perfusion 2020-10, Vol.35 (7), p.633-640, Article 0267659119897784 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background:
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an accepted therapy option for refractory cardiac or respiratory failure. The outcomes of cases initiated at non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers and subsequently transported for management to an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center require further investigation.
Methods:
Retrospective institutional review board–approved database research and chart reviews were performed on referrals for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initially admitted to an outside non–extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center hospital (OSH) then transferred to our extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center (Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH)). Unstable patients were placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at OSH (Group A) before transport, while others were initiated at our certified extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center (Group B) upon arrival. Group A was further subdivided into patients cannulated by OSH personnel (Group AOSH) or TJUH transport team (Group ATJUH). Outcomes and complications were compared between the different initiation sites and personnel.
Results:
A total of 108 patients were transferred from August 2010 to June 2018. The technical complication rate for all Group A patients was 33/49 (67%), while that of Group B was 24/59 (41%); p = 0.006. Within Group A, Group AOSH had a greater technical complication rate with 29/33 (88%) than Group ATJUH with 4/16 (25%); p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0267-6591 1477-111X |
DOI: | 10.1177/0267659119897784 |