Life span of different extracorporeal membrane systems for severe respiratory failure in the clinical practice

26Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Over the past decade, veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) has been increasingly utilized in respiratory failure in patients. This study presents our institution ´s experience focusing on the life span of ECMO systems reflecting the performance of a particular system. A retrospective review of our ECMO database identified 461 adult patients undergoing vvECMO (2010–2017). Patients that required more than one system and survived the first exchange >24 hours (n = 139) were included. Life span until the first exchange and exchange criteria were analyzed for all systems (PLS, Cardiohelp HLS-set, both Maquet Cardiopulmonary, Rastatt, Germany; Deltastream/Hilite7000LT, iLA-activve, Xenios/NovaLung, Heilbronn, Germany; ECC.O5, LivaNova, Mirandola, Italy). At our ECMO center, the frequency of a system exchange was 30%. The median (IQR) life span was 9 (6–12) days. There was no difference regarding the different systems (p = 0.145 and p = 0.108, respectively). However, the Deltastream systems were exchanged more frequently due to elective technical complications (e. g. worsened gas transfer, development of coagulation disorder, increased bleedings complications) compared to the other exchanged systems (p = 0.013). In summary, the used ECMO systems are safe and effective for acute respiratory failure. There is no evidence for the usage of a specific system. Only the increased predictability of an imminent exchange preferred the usage of a Deltastream system. However, the decision to use a particular system should not depend solely on the possible criteria for an exchange.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Philipp, A., De Somer, F., Foltan, M., Bredthauer, A., Krenkel, L., Zeman, F., & Lehle, K. (2018). Life span of different extracorporeal membrane systems for severe respiratory failure in the clinical practice. PLoS ONE, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198392

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free