Knight G R, Dudell G G, Evans M L, Grimm P S
Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital and Health Center, San Diego, CA 92123, USA.
Crit Care Med. 1996 Oct;24(10):1678-83. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199610000-00013.
To compare the efficacy of venovenous to venoarterial bypass in an unselected cohort of infants with refractory cardiorespiratory failure.
Retrospective cohort analysis.
Two tertiary hospitals capable of providing extracorporeal life support for neonates with acute respiratory failure.
All San Diego Regional Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Program patients treated after the adoption of a policy which eliminated traditional restrictions to venovenous support.
Venoarterial or venovenous extracorporeal life support.
Fifty-four infants were treated with venovenous bypass; 30 were treated with venoarterial bypass due to unsuccessful placement of the double lumen venovenous catheter or inability to exclude congenital heart disease before cannulation. No patient required conversion from venovenous to venoarterial ECMO. There were no differences in birth weight, gestational age, diagnosis, or pre-ECMO condition in the two groups. Patients who met ECMO criteria early were more likely to be successfully cannulated with a double-lumen venovenous catheter. Severe hemodynamic compromise was present before cannulation in a comparable percentage of venovenous and venoarterial patients. During venovenous bypass, mean Pao2 values were lower but remained in the normoxic range; Paco2 values, ventilatory setting, intravascular volume requirements, inotropic support, and mean duration of ECMO support were not different. The frequency rate of patient and mechanical complications were also comparable, except that the frequency of intravascular thrombosis was significantly lower in patients receiving venovenous ECMO. Survival, the frequency rate of chronic lung disease, and neurodevelopmental outcome were similar in the two groups.
We conclude that venovenous ECMO using a double-lumen venovenous catheter can provide results comparable with venoarterial bypass without the need for carotid artery ligation in an unselected population of neonatal ECMO candidates. In our experience, reported contraindications to venovenous ECMO did not prove to be valid.
在未经挑选的难治性心肺衰竭婴儿队列中比较静脉 - 静脉旁路与静脉 - 动脉旁路的疗效。
回顾性队列分析。
两家能够为急性呼吸衰竭新生儿提供体外生命支持的三级医院。
圣地亚哥地区体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)项目中,在采用一项消除对静脉 - 静脉支持传统限制的政策后接受治疗的所有患者。
静脉 - 动脉或静脉 - 静脉体外生命支持。
54例婴儿接受静脉 - 静脉旁路治疗;30例因双腔静脉 - 静脉导管置入失败或在插管前无法排除先天性心脏病而接受静脉 - 动脉旁路治疗。没有患者需要从静脉 - 静脉ECMO转换为静脉 - 动脉ECMO。两组在出生体重、胎龄、诊断或ECMO前状况方面没有差异。早期符合ECMO标准的患者更有可能成功置入双腔静脉 - 静脉导管。在静脉 - 静脉和静脉 - 动脉患者中,插管前出现严重血流动力学损害的比例相当。在静脉 - 静脉旁路期间,平均动脉血氧分压(Pao2)值较低,但仍处于正常氧合范围内;动脉血二氧化碳分压(Paco2)值、通气设置、血管内容量需求、血管活性药物支持以及ECMO支持的平均持续时间没有差异。患者和机械并发症的发生率也相当,只是接受静脉 - 静脉ECMO的患者血管内血栓形成的发生率显著较低。两组的生存率、慢性肺病发生率和神经发育结局相似。
我们得出结论,在未经挑选的新生儿ECMO候选人群中,使用双腔静脉 - 静脉导管的静脉 - 静脉ECMO可提供与静脉 - 动脉旁路相当的结果,且无需结扎颈动脉。根据我们的经验,报告的静脉 - 静脉ECMO的禁忌证并不成立。