Cargando…
ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival?
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is an established tool to stabilize severely ill patients with therapy-refractory hemodynamic or respiratory failure. Recently, we established a mobile ECLS retrieval service at our institution. However, data on the outcome of patients receiving ECLS at...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8170971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34078397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-021-01508-9 |
_version_ | 1783702344914960384 |
---|---|
author | Fleissner, Felix Mogaldea, Alexandru Martens, Andreas Natanov, Ruslan Rümke, Stefan Salman, Jawad Kaufeld, Tim Ius, Fabio Beckmann, Erik Haverich, Axel Kühn, Christian |
author_facet | Fleissner, Felix Mogaldea, Alexandru Martens, Andreas Natanov, Ruslan Rümke, Stefan Salman, Jawad Kaufeld, Tim Ius, Fabio Beckmann, Erik Haverich, Axel Kühn, Christian |
author_sort | Fleissner, Felix |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is an established tool to stabilize severely ill patients with therapy-refractory hemodynamic or respiratory failure. Recently, we established a mobile ECLS retrieval service at our institution. However, data on the outcome of patients receiving ECLS at outside hospitals for transportation into tertiary hospitals is still sparse. METHODS: We have analyzed all patients receiving ECLS in outside hospitals (Transport group, TG) prior to transportation to our institution and compared the outcome to our in-house ECLS experience (Home Group, HG). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2018, we performed 978 ECLS implantations, 243 of which were performed on-site in tertiary hospitals for ECLS supported transportation. Significantly more veno-venous systems were implanted in TG (n = 129 (53%) vs. n = 327 (45%), p = 0.012). Indication for ECLS support differed between the groups, with more pneumonia; acute respiratory distress syndromes in the TG group and of course, more postcardiotomy patients in HG. Mean age was 47 (± 20) (HG) vs. 48 (± 18) (TG) years, p = 0.477 with no change over time. No differences were seen in ECLS support time (8.03 days ±8.19 days HG vs 7.81 days ±6.71 days TG, p = 0.675). 30-day mortality (n = 379 (52%) (HG) vs. n = 119 (49%) (TG) p = 0.265) and death on ECLS support (n = 322 (44%) (HG) vs. n = 97 (40%) TG, p = 0.162) were comparable between the two groups, despite a more severe SAVE score in the v-a TG (HG: − 1.56 (± 4.73) vs. TG -3.93 (± 4.22) p < 0.001). Mortality rates did not change significantly over the years. Multivariate risk analysis revealed Influenza, Peak Insp. Pressure at implantation, pO2/FiO2 ratio and ECLS Score (SAVE/RESP) as well as ECLS support time to be independent risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Mobile ECLS support is a tremendous challenge. However, it is justified to offer 24 h/7d ECLS standby for secondary and primary hospitals as a tertiary hospital. Increasing indications and total numbers for ECLS support raise the need for further studies to evaluate outcome in these patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8170971 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81709712021-06-03 ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? Fleissner, Felix Mogaldea, Alexandru Martens, Andreas Natanov, Ruslan Rümke, Stefan Salman, Jawad Kaufeld, Tim Ius, Fabio Beckmann, Erik Haverich, Axel Kühn, Christian J Cardiothorac Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is an established tool to stabilize severely ill patients with therapy-refractory hemodynamic or respiratory failure. Recently, we established a mobile ECLS retrieval service at our institution. However, data on the outcome of patients receiving ECLS at outside hospitals for transportation into tertiary hospitals is still sparse. METHODS: We have analyzed all patients receiving ECLS in outside hospitals (Transport group, TG) prior to transportation to our institution and compared the outcome to our in-house ECLS experience (Home Group, HG). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2018, we performed 978 ECLS implantations, 243 of which were performed on-site in tertiary hospitals for ECLS supported transportation. Significantly more veno-venous systems were implanted in TG (n = 129 (53%) vs. n = 327 (45%), p = 0.012). Indication for ECLS support differed between the groups, with more pneumonia; acute respiratory distress syndromes in the TG group and of course, more postcardiotomy patients in HG. Mean age was 47 (± 20) (HG) vs. 48 (± 18) (TG) years, p = 0.477 with no change over time. No differences were seen in ECLS support time (8.03 days ±8.19 days HG vs 7.81 days ±6.71 days TG, p = 0.675). 30-day mortality (n = 379 (52%) (HG) vs. n = 119 (49%) (TG) p = 0.265) and death on ECLS support (n = 322 (44%) (HG) vs. n = 97 (40%) TG, p = 0.162) were comparable between the two groups, despite a more severe SAVE score in the v-a TG (HG: − 1.56 (± 4.73) vs. TG -3.93 (± 4.22) p < 0.001). Mortality rates did not change significantly over the years. Multivariate risk analysis revealed Influenza, Peak Insp. Pressure at implantation, pO2/FiO2 ratio and ECLS Score (SAVE/RESP) as well as ECLS support time to be independent risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Mobile ECLS support is a tremendous challenge. However, it is justified to offer 24 h/7d ECLS standby for secondary and primary hospitals as a tertiary hospital. Increasing indications and total numbers for ECLS support raise the need for further studies to evaluate outcome in these patients. BioMed Central 2021-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8170971/ /pubmed/34078397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-021-01508-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fleissner, Felix Mogaldea, Alexandru Martens, Andreas Natanov, Ruslan Rümke, Stefan Salman, Jawad Kaufeld, Tim Ius, Fabio Beckmann, Erik Haverich, Axel Kühn, Christian ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? |
title | ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? |
title_full | ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? |
title_fullStr | ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? |
title_full_unstemmed | ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? |
title_short | ECLS supported transport of ICU patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? |
title_sort | ecls supported transport of icu patients: does out-of -house implantation impact survival? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8170971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34078397 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13019-021-01508-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fleissnerfelix eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT mogaldeaalexandru eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT martensandreas eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT natanovruslan eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT rumkestefan eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT salmanjawad eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT kaufeldtim eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT iusfabio eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT beckmannerik eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT haverichaxel eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival AT kuhnchristian eclssupportedtransportoficupatientsdoesoutofhouseimplantationimpactsurvival |