• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Artificial Organs >Femoro-Femoral Versus Atrio-Aortic Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Selecting the Ideal Cannulation Technique
【24h】

Femoro-Femoral Versus Atrio-Aortic Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Selecting the Ideal Cannulation Technique

机译：股骨股动脉与房主动脉体外膜氧合：选择理想的插管技术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be implanted using peripheral ECMO (pECMO) or central ECMO (cECMO) cannulation techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome between these two cannulation techniques. A retrospective study was performed at Düsseldorf University Hospital from October 2009 through June 2011. Inclusion criteria were patients with veno-arterial ECMO support ≥24h. Various pre- and postimplantation variables were investigated including postimplantation hemodynamic and ECMO parameters, oxygenation/ventilation parameters at 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72h, as well as renal and liver function tests at first and third postoperative days following implantation. Outcome data of patients receiving pECMO were compared with those who received cECMO. The inclusion criteria were met by 37 patients (25 pECMO and 12 cECMO). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between these two groups except for younger age in pECMO patients (P=0.005). All postimplantation variables were comparable between the two groups except for higher PO2 and lower PCO2 values at the 3rd hour postimplantation in patients with pECMO (P=0.007 and 0.01, respectively). Eleven (44%) of the pECMO patients required re-exploration for bleeding versus 100% of patients with cECMO (P=0.01). Ischemic leg complication was observed in four pECMO and three cECMO patients. Thirty-day mortality in patients with pECMO and cECMO was 60% versus 67%, respectively (P=1.00). In this study, no particular oxygenation/ventilation, hemodymanic, or end-organ function advantage was observed with either cannulation technique. However, more bleeding and resternotomy complications were observed in cECMO patients.
机译：可以使用外周ECMO（pECMO）或中央ECMO（cECMO）插管技术植入静脉-动脉体外膜氧合（ECMO）。这项研究的目的是比较这两种插管技术之间的结果。从2009年10月至2011年6月在杜塞尔多夫大学医院进行了一项回顾性研究。纳入标准为静脉-动脉ECMO支持≥24h的患者。研究了各种植入前和植入后的变量，包括植入后的血流动力学和ECMO参数，植入后3、6、12、24、48、72h的充氧/通气参数，以及植入后第一天和第三天的肾和肝功能测试。比较接受pECMO的患者和接受cECMO的患者的结果数据。纳入标准满足了37位患者（25 pECMO和12 cECMO）的要求。两组之间的基线特征无显着差异，但pECMO患者的年龄较年轻（P = 0.005）。 pECMO患者在植入后第3小时，除PO2值较高和PCO2值较低外，两组的所有植入后变量均具有可比性（分别为P = 0.007和0.01）。有11名（44％）的pECMO患者需要重新探查出血，而100％的cECMO患者则需要重新探查（P = 0.01）。在四名pECMO和三名cECMO患者中观察到了缺血性腿部并发症。 pECMO和cECMO患者的30天死亡率分别为60％和67％（P = 1.00）。在这项研究中，使用任何一种插管技术均未观察到特别的充氧/通气，血液痛或终末器官功能的优势。但是，在cECMO患者中观察到更多的出血和再切开术并发症。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号