Rich P B, Awad S S, Crotti S, Hirschl R B, Bartlett R H, Schreiner R J
Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor, USA.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998 Oct;116(4):628-32. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(98)70170-9.
In the United States, venovenous extracorporeal life support has traditionally been performed with atrial drainage and femoral reinfusion (atrio-femoral flow). Although flow reversal (femoro-atrial flow) may alter recirculation and extracorporeal flow, no direct comparison of these 2 modes has been undertaken.
Our goal was to prospectively compare atrio-femoral and femoro-atrial flow in adult venovenous extracorporeal life support for respiratory failure.
A modified bridge enabling conversion between atrio-femoral and femoro-atrial flow was incorporated in the extracorporeal circuit. Bypass was initiated in the direction that provided the highest pulmonary arterial mixed venous oxygen saturation, and the following measurements were taken: (1) maximum extracorporeal flow, (2) highest achievable pulmonary arterial mixed venous oxygen saturation, and (3) flow required to maintain the same pulmonary arterial mixed venous oxygen saturation in both directions. Flow direction was then reversed, and the measurements were repeated. Data were compared with paired t tests and are presented as mean +/- standard deviation.
Ten patients were studied, and 9 were included in the data analysis. Femoro-atrial bypass provided (1) higher maximal extracorporeal flow (femoro-atrial flow = 55.6 +/- 9.8 mL/kg per minute, atrio-femoral flow = 51.1 +/- 11.1 mL/kg per minute; P = .04) and (2) higher pulmonary arterial mixed venous oxygen saturation (femoroatrial flow = 89.9% +/- 6.6%, atrio-femoral flow = 83.2% +/- 4.2%; P = .006); (3) furthermore, it required less flow to maintain an equivalent pulmonary arterial mixed venous oxygen saturation (femoro-atrial flow = 37.0 +/- 12.2 mL/kg per minute, atrio-femoral flow = 46.4 +/- 8.8 mL/kg per minute; P = .04).
During venovenous extracorporeal life support, femoro-atrial bypass provided higher maximal extracorporeal flow, higher pulmonary arterial mixed venous oxygen saturation, and required comparatively less flow to maintain an equivalent mixed venous oxygen saturation than did atrio-femoral bypass.
在美国,静脉-静脉体外膜肺氧合(ECLS)传统上采用心房引流和股静脉回输(心房-股静脉血流模式)。尽管血流逆转(股静脉-心房血流模式)可能会改变再循环和体外循环血流量,但尚未对这两种模式进行直接比较。
我们的目标是前瞻性比较成人呼吸衰竭静脉-静脉ECLS中,心房-股静脉和股静脉-心房血流模式。
在体外循环回路中加入一种改良的桥接装置,可实现心房-股静脉和股静脉-心房血流模式之间的转换。以能提供最高肺动脉混合静脉血氧饱和度的血流方向开始体外循环,并进行以下测量:(1)最大体外循环血流量;(2)可达到的最高肺动脉混合静脉血氧饱和度;(3)维持双向相同肺动脉混合静脉血氧饱和度所需的血流量。然后逆转血流方向,并重复测量。数据采用配对t检验进行比较,结果以平均值±标准差表示。
对10例患者进行了研究,9例纳入数据分析。股静脉-心房体外循环显示:(1)最大体外循环血流量更高(股静脉-心房血流模式=55.6±9.8毫升/千克每分钟,心房-股静脉血流模式=51.1±11.1毫升/千克每分钟;P=0.04);(2)肺动脉混合静脉血氧饱和度更高(股静脉-心房血流模式=89.9%±6.6%,心房-股静脉血流模式=83.2%±4.2%;P=0.006);(3)此外,维持相同肺动脉混合静脉血氧饱和度所需的血流量更少(股静脉-心房血流模式=37.0±12.2毫升/千克每分钟,心房-股静脉血流模式=46.4±8.8毫升/千克每分钟;P=0.04)。
在静脉-静脉ECLS期间,与心房-股静脉体外循环相比,股静脉-心房体外循环提供了更高的最大体外循环血流量、更高的肺动脉混合静脉血氧饱和度,且维持相同混合静脉血氧饱和度所需的血流量相对较少。