Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Riley Hospital for Children, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Respir Care. 2020 Mar;65(3):271-280. doi: 10.4187/respcare.07214. Epub 2020 Jan 28.
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is used when mechanical ventilation can no longer support oxygenation or ventilation, or if the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury is considered excessive. The optimum mechanical ventilation strategy once on ECMO is unknown. We sought to describe the practice of mechanical ventilation in children on VV-ECMO and to determine whether mechanical ventilation practices are associated with clinical outcomes.
We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study in 10 pediatric academic centers in the United States. Children age 14 d through 18 y on VV-ECMO from 2011 to 2016 were included. Exclusion criteria were preexisting chronic respiratory failure, primary diagnosis of asthma, cyanotic heart disease, or ECMO as a bridge to lung transplant.
Conventional mechanical ventilation was used in about 75% of children on VV-ECMO; the remaining subjects were managed with a variety of approaches. With the exception of PEEP, there was large variation in ventilator settings. Ventilator mode and pressure settings were not associated with survival. Mean ventilator F on days 1-3 was higher in nonsurvivors than in survivors (0.5 vs 0.4, = .009). In univariate analysis, other risk factors for mortality were female gender, higher Pediatric Risk Estimate Score for Children Using Extracorporeal Respiratory Support (Ped-RESCUERS), diagnosis of cancer or stem cell transplant, and number of days intubated prior to initiation of ECMO (all < .05). In multivariate analysis, ventilator F was significantly associated with mortality (odds ratio 1.38 for each 0.1 increase in F , 95% CI 1.09-1.75). Mortality was higher in subjects on high ventilator F (≥ 0.5) compared to low ventilator F (> 0.5) (46% vs 22%, = .001).
Ventilator mode and some settings vary in practice. The only ventilator setting associated with mortality was F , even after adjustment for disease severity. Ventilator F is a modifiable setting that may contribute to mortality in children on VV-ECMO.
当机械通气无法再支持氧合或通气,或者认为呼吸机引起的肺损伤风险过高时,会使用静脉-静脉体外膜肺氧合(VV-ECMO)。在 ECMO 上的最佳机械通气策略尚不清楚。我们旨在描述儿童 VV-ECMO 上的机械通气实践,并确定机械通气实践是否与临床结果相关。
我们在美国 10 家儿科学术中心进行了一项多中心回顾性队列研究。纳入 2011 年至 2016 年 VV-ECMO 上年龄在 14 天至 18 岁的儿童。排除标准为:存在慢性呼吸衰竭、哮喘的主要诊断、紫绀性心脏病或 ECMO 作为肺移植的桥接。
约 75%的 VV-ECMO 患儿接受了常规机械通气;其余患儿接受了各种方法的治疗。除 PEEP 外,呼吸机设置存在很大差异。通气模式和压力设置与存活率无关。与幸存者相比,非幸存者在第 1-3 天的呼吸机 F 值更高(0.5 比 0.4, =.009)。在单变量分析中,死亡率的其他危险因素为女性、更高的儿童体外呼吸支持使用的儿科风险估计评分(Ped-RESCUERS)、癌症或干细胞移植的诊断以及 ECMO 启动前插管的天数(均 <.05)。在多变量分析中,呼吸机 F 与死亡率显著相关(F 每增加 0.1,死亡率的比值比为 1.38,95%CI 为 1.09-1.75)。与低呼吸机 F (> 0.5)相比,高呼吸机 F (≥ 0.5)患儿的死亡率更高(46%比 22%, =.001)。
通气模式和某些设置在实践中存在差异。唯一与死亡率相关的呼吸机设置是 F ,即使在调整疾病严重程度后也是如此。呼吸机 F 是一个可调节的设置,可能导致 VV-ECMO 上的儿童死亡。