Venovenous Versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membranous Oxygenation in Inotrope Dependent Pediatric Patients With Respiratory Failure
- PMID: 33770001
- DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001254
Venovenous Versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membranous Oxygenation in Inotrope Dependent Pediatric Patients With Respiratory Failure
Abstract
Patients with respiratory failure requiring inotropes or vasopressors are often placed on venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), as venovenous (VV) ECMO does not provide direct circulatory support. This retrospective multicenter study compared outcomes for 103 pediatric patients, with hemodynamic compromise, placed on VV ECMO for respiratory failure to those placed on VA ECMO. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Fifty-seven (55%) study participants were supported on VV ECMO. The two groups had similar PRISM III scores at pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission, and vasoactive-inotropic scores at ECMO cannulation. More VV ECMO patients received inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) (54.4 vs. 34.8%; p = 0.04) and had a higher oxygenation index (median 41.5 vs. 19.5; p = 0.04) pre-ECMO. More VA ECMO patients had cardiac dysfunction and cardiac arrest pre-ECMO (50 vs. 14%; p < 0.0001). In univariable analysis, survival to hospital discharge was higher in the VV vs. VA ECMO group (72 vs. 44%; p = 0.005), however, in multivariable models, cannulation type was confounded by cardiopulmonary resuscitation and was not independently associated with survival. VV survivors had longer ECMO duration compared with VA survivors (median, 7 vs. 4.5 days; p = 0.036) but similar PICU and hospital days. No significant difference was noted in functional outcomes or comorbidities at discharge. Cannulation type is not independently associated with survival to hospital discharge in pediatric patients on vasoactive infusions at the time of ECMO cannulation for respiratory indications.
Copyright © ASAIO 2020.
Conflict of interest statement
Disclosure: No funding was secured for this article. The authors have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.
References
-
- Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al. EOLIA Trial Group, REVA, and ECMONetExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 378:1965–1975, 2018
-
- Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R, et al. CESAR Trial CollaborationEfficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): A multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 374:1351–1363, 2009
-
- Roberts N, Westrope C, Pooboni SK, et al. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure in inotrope dependent neonates. ASAIO J. 49:568–571, 2003
-
- Lin JC.Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe pediatric respiratory failure. Respiratory Care. 62:732–750, 2017
-
- 5. Fan E, Gattinoni L, Combes A, et al. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med. 42:712–724, 2016
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
