Kurkluoglu Mustafa, Hynes Conor F, Alfares Fahad A, El-Sayed Ahmed Magdy M, Peer Syed M, Zurakowski David, Jonas Richard A, Nath Dilip S
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Children's National Health System, Washington DC, USA.
J Card Surg. 2015 May;30(5):461-5. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12538. Epub 2015 Mar 19.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving measure for pediatric patients with cardiopulmonary failure. The option of cannulating neck vessels versus those of the groin exists for patients over 15 kg; however, each carries the risk for complications. We present a single-center experience comparing the risks and benefits of these alternate peripheral ECMO cannulation sites.
All pediatric patients supported by venoarterial (VA) ECMO via peripheral cannulation from January 2006 to May 2013 were retrospectively reviewed, excluding those weighing less than 15 kg. We compared complications of neck versus groin cannulation sites, including neurologic dysfunction, limb ischemia, and in-hospital mortality. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify factors for complications including mortality.
Thirty-six patients (median age 10.8 years, interquartile range: 6.0-15.8) were cannulated for VA ECMO. Forty-four percent were cannulated via neck vessels and 47% were cannulated via groin. Nine percent were cannulated at both sites. Overall survival was 72% at decannulation and 67% at hospital discharge. No statistically significant survival difference between groin and neck cannulation subgroups was found. Rate of neurologic injury was higher in neck (25%) versus groin (12%) cannulation, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.52). Extremity ischemia occurred in five patients having groin cannulation (29%, p = 0.04).
Neck cannulation is a valuable alternative to groin vessels in patients above 15 kg. Risk of limb ischemia with groin cannulation is significant, and must be considered when choosing the cannulation site for ECMO support.
体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)是治疗小儿心肺衰竭的一种挽救生命的措施。对于体重超过15kg的患者,存在颈部血管插管与腹股沟血管插管两种选择;然而,每种方法都有并发症风险。我们介绍了单中心比较这两种外周ECMO插管部位的风险和益处的经验。
回顾性分析2006年1月至2013年5月期间通过外周插管接受静脉-动脉(VA)ECMO支持的所有小儿患者,排除体重小于15kg的患者。我们比较了颈部与腹股沟插管部位的并发症,包括神经功能障碍、肢体缺血和住院死亡率。进行单因素分析和多变量逻辑回归以确定包括死亡率在内的并发症因素。
36例患者(中位年龄10.8岁,四分位间距:6.0 - 15.8)接受了VA ECMO插管。44%通过颈部血管插管,47%通过腹股沟插管。9%在两个部位都进行了插管。脱机时总体生存率为72%,出院时为67%。腹股沟和颈部插管亚组之间未发现统计学上显著的生存差异。颈部插管的神经损伤发生率(25%)高于腹股沟插管(12%),但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.52)。5例腹股沟插管患者发生肢体缺血(29%,p = 0.04)。
对于体重超过15kg的患者,颈部插管是腹股沟血管插管的一种有价值的替代方法。腹股沟插管导致肢体缺血的风险显著,在选择ECMO支持的插管部位时必须予以考虑。