Cargando…
Optimal positive end-expiratory pressure reduces right ventricular dysfunction in COVID-19 patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A retrospective single-center study
While mechanical ventilation practices on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) are variable, most institutions utilize a lung rest strategy utilizing relatively low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The effect of PEEP titration using esophageal manometry during VV ECMO on...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier Inc.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9908009/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36764115 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2023.154274 |
Sumario: | While mechanical ventilation practices on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) are variable, most institutions utilize a lung rest strategy utilizing relatively low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). The effect of PEEP titration using esophageal manometry during VV ECMO on pulmonary and cardiac function is unknown. This was a retrospective study of 69 patients initiated on VV ECMO between March 2020 through November 2021. Patients underwent standard PEEP (typically 10 cm H(2)O) or optimal PEEP (PEEP titrated to an end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure 0–3 cm H(2)O) throughout the ECMO run. The optimal PEEP strategy had higher levels of applied PEEP (17.9 vs. 10.8 cm H(2)O on day 2 of ECMO), decreased incidence of hemodynamically significant RV dysfunction (4.55% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.0001), and higher survival to decannulation (72.7% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.022). Survival to discharge did not reach statistical significance (61.4% vs. 44.0%, p = 0.211). In univariate logistic regression analysis, optimal PEEP was associated with less hemodynamically significant RV dysfunction with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.27, p = 0.0008) and increased survival to decannulation with an OR of 3.39 (95% CI 1.23–9.79), p = 0.02), though other confounding factors may have contributed. |
---|