We have located links that may give you full text access.
Severe Lung Dysfunction and Pulmonary Blood Flow during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.
Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 Februrary 17
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is indicated for patients with severe respiratory and/or circulatory failure. The standard technique to visualize the extent of pulmonary damage during ECMO is computed tomography (CT).
PURPOSE: This single-center, retrospective study investigated whether pulmonary blood flow (PBF) measured with echocardiography can assist in assessing the extent of pulmonary damage and whether echocardiography and CT findings are associated with patient outcomes.
METHODS: All patients (>15 years) commenced on ECMO between 2011 and 2017 with septic shock of pulmonary origin and a treatment time >28 days were screened. Of 277 eligible patients, 9 were identified where both CT and echocardiography had been consecutively performed.
RESULTS: CT failed to indicate any differences in viable lung parenchyma within or between survivors and non-survivors at any time during ECMO treatment. Upon initiation of ECMO, the survivors ( n = 5) and non-survivors ( n = 4) had similar PBF. During a full course of ECMO support, survivors showed no change in PBF (3.8 ± 2.1 at ECMO start vs. 7.9 ± 4.3 L/min, p = 0.12), whereas non-survivors significantly deteriorated in PBF from 3.5 ± 1.0 to 1.0 ± 1.1 L/min ( p = 0.029). Tidal volumes were significantly lower over time among the non-survivors, p = 0.047.
CONCLUSIONS: In prolonged ECMO for pulmonary septic shock, CT was not found to be effective for the evaluation of pulmonary viability or recovery. This hypothesis-generating investigation supports echocardiography as a tool to predict pulmonary recovery via the assessment of PBF at the early to later stages of ECMO support.
PURPOSE: This single-center, retrospective study investigated whether pulmonary blood flow (PBF) measured with echocardiography can assist in assessing the extent of pulmonary damage and whether echocardiography and CT findings are associated with patient outcomes.
METHODS: All patients (>15 years) commenced on ECMO between 2011 and 2017 with septic shock of pulmonary origin and a treatment time >28 days were screened. Of 277 eligible patients, 9 were identified where both CT and echocardiography had been consecutively performed.
RESULTS: CT failed to indicate any differences in viable lung parenchyma within or between survivors and non-survivors at any time during ECMO treatment. Upon initiation of ECMO, the survivors ( n = 5) and non-survivors ( n = 4) had similar PBF. During a full course of ECMO support, survivors showed no change in PBF (3.8 ± 2.1 at ECMO start vs. 7.9 ± 4.3 L/min, p = 0.12), whereas non-survivors significantly deteriorated in PBF from 3.5 ± 1.0 to 1.0 ± 1.1 L/min ( p = 0.029). Tidal volumes were significantly lower over time among the non-survivors, p = 0.047.
CONCLUSIONS: In prolonged ECMO for pulmonary septic shock, CT was not found to be effective for the evaluation of pulmonary viability or recovery. This hypothesis-generating investigation supports echocardiography as a tool to predict pulmonary recovery via the assessment of PBF at the early to later stages of ECMO support.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Management of Diverticulitis: A Review.JAMA Surgery 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app