体外膜肺氧合在肺栓塞患者中的临床应用及结果
Clinical use and outcome of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with pulmonary embolism.
作者信息
Hobohm Lukas, Sagoschen Ingo, Habertheuer Andreas, Barco Stefano, Valerio Luca, Wild Johannes, Schmidt Frank P, Gori Tommaso, Münzel Thomas, Konstantinides Stavros, Keller Karsten
机构信息
Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany; Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis (CTH), University Medical Center Mainz, Germany.
Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Mainz, Germany.
出版信息
Resuscitation. 2022 Jan;170:285-292. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.10.007. Epub 2021 Oct 12.
AIM OF THE STUDY
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is considered a life-saving treatment option for patients in cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) due to acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We sought to analyze use and outcome of ECMO with or without adjunctive treatment strategies in patients with acute PE.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed data on patient characteristics, treatments, and in-hospital outcomes for all PE patients (ICD-code I26) undergoing ECMO in Germany between 2005 and 2018.
RESULTS
At total of 1,172,354 patients were hospitalized with PE; of those, 2,197 (0.2%) were treated with ECMO support. Cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation was present in 77,196 (6.5%) patients. While more than one fourth of those patients were treated with systemic thrombolysis alone (n = 20,839 patients; 27.0%), a minority of patients received thrombolysis and VA-ECMO (n = 165; 0.2%), embolectomy and VA-ECMO (n = 385; 0.5%) or VA-ECMOalone (n = 588; 0.8%). A multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated the lowest risk for in-hospital death in patients who received embolectomy in combination with VA-ECMO (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.41-0.61], p < 0.001), thrombolysis and VA-ECMO (0.60 [0.43-0.85], p = 0.003) or VA-ECMO alone (0.68 [0.57-0.82], p < 0.001) compared to thrombolysis alone (1.04 [0.99-1.01], p = 0.116).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that the use of VA-ECMO alone or as part of a multi-pronged reperfusion approach including embolectomy or thrombolysis might offer survival advantages compared to thrombolysis alone in patients with PE deteriorating to cardiac arrest.
研究目的
体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)被认为是因急性肺栓塞(PE)导致心源性休克或心脏骤停并正在接受心肺复苏(CPR)的患者的一种挽救生命的治疗选择。我们试图分析急性PE患者使用ECMO联合或不联合辅助治疗策略的情况及结果。
方法
我们回顾性分析了2005年至2018年间在德国接受ECMO治疗的所有PE患者(国际疾病分类代码I26)的患者特征、治疗及院内结局数据。
结果
共有1,172,354例患者因PE住院;其中,2,197例(0.2%)接受了ECMO支持。77,196例(6.5%)患者出现需要心肺复苏的心脏骤停。虽然超过四分之一的此类患者仅接受了全身溶栓治疗(n = 20,839例患者;27.0%),但少数患者接受了溶栓联合VA-ECMO治疗(n = 165例;0.2%)、栓子切除术联合VA-ECMO治疗(n = 385例;0.5%)或单纯VA-ECMO治疗(n = 588例;0.8%)。多变量逻辑回归分析表明,与单纯溶栓治疗(比值比,1.04 [95%置信区间,0.99 - 1.01],p = 0.116)相比,接受栓子切除术联合VA-ECMO治疗(比值比,0.50 [95%置信区间,0.41 - 0.61],p < 0.001)、溶栓联合VA-ECMO治疗(0.60 [0.43 - 0.85],p = 0.003)或单纯VA-ECMO治疗(0.68 [0.57 - 0.82],p < 0.001)的患者院内死亡风险最低。
结论
我们的研究结果表明,对于因PE病情恶化至心脏骤停的患者,单纯使用VA-ECMO或作为包括栓子切除术或溶栓在内的多管齐下再灌注方法的一部分,可能比单纯溶栓治疗具有生存优势。