Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
JTCVS Tech ; 16: 109-116, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2147955

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Proning patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been associated with increased survival, although few data exist evaluating the safety and feasibility of proning patients with ARDS on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods: A single-institution retrospective review of all patients with ARDS placed on ECMO between March 1 and May 31, 2020, was performed. All proning events were evaluated for complications, as well as change in compliance, sweep, oxygenation, and flow. The primary outcome of this study was the rate major morbidity associated with proning while on ECMO. Results: In total, 30 patients were placed on ECMO for ARDS, with 12 patients (40%) proned while on ECMO. A total of 83 proning episodes occurred, with a median of 7 per patient (interquartile range, 3-9). No ECMO cannula-associated bleeding, cannula displacement, or endotracheal tune dislodgements occurred (0%). Oropharyngeal bleeding occurred twice (50%). Four patients were proned with chest tubes in place, and none had complications (0%). Lung compliance improved after proning in 70 events (84%), from a mean of 15.4 mL/mm Hg preproning to 20.6 mL/mm Hg postproning (P < .0001). Sweep requirement decreased in 36 events (43%). Oxygenation improved in 63 events (76%), from a mean partial pressure of oxygen of 86 preproning to 103 postproning (P < .0001). Mean ECMO flow was unchanged. Conclusions: Proning in patients with ARDS on ECMO is safe with an associated improvement in lung mechanics. With careful planning and coordination, these data support the practice of appropriately proning patients with severe ARDS, even if they are on ECMO.

2.
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes ; 6(3): 200-208, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1729991

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a novel etiology of end-stage lung disease, has resulted in major disruptions to the process of health care delivery worldwide. These disruptions have led to team-based innovations globally, resulting in a broad range of new processes in cardiopulmonary perioperative management. A key intersection of multidisciplinary teamwork and COVID-19 is found in lung transplantation, in which diverse teams collaborate throughout the perioperative period to achieve optimal outcomes. In this article, we describe the multidisciplinary approach taken by Mayo clinic in Florida to manage patients with COVID-19 presenting for lung transplantation.

3.
JTCVS Tech ; 12: 78-92, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1632984

ABSTRACT

Objective: Although extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has been increasingly adopted as rescue therapy for cardiac and pulmonary failure, it remains limited to specialized centers. The present study reports our institutional experience with mobile ECLS across broad indications, including postcardiotomy syndrome, cardiogenic shock, and COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all patients transported to our institution through our mobile ECLS program from January 1, 2018, to January 15, 2021. Results: Of 110 patients transported to our institution on ECLS, 65.5% required venovenous, 30.9% peripheral venoarterial, and 3.6% central venoarterial support. The most common indications for mobile ECLS were acute respiratory failure (46.4%), COVID-19-associated respiratory failure (19.1%), cardiogenic shock (18.2%) and postcardiotomy syndrome (11.8%). The median pre-ECLS Pao2:Fio2 for venovenous-ECLS was 64 mm Hg (interquartile range [IQR], 53-75 mm Hg) and 95.8 mm Hg (IQR, 55-227 mm Hg) for venoarterial-ECLS, whereas median pH and base deficit were 7.25 (IQR, 7.16-7.33) and 7 mmol/L (IQR, 4-11 mmol/L) for those requiring venoarterial-ECLS. Patients were transported using a ground ambulance from 50 institutions with a median distance of 27.5 miles (IQR, 18.7-48.0 miles). Extracorporeal circulation was established within a median of 45 minutes (IQR, 30-55 minutes) after team arrival. Survival to discharge was 67.3% for those requiring venovenous-ECLS for non-COVID-19 respiratory failure, 52.4% for those with COVID-19%, and 54.1% for those requiring venoarterial-ECLS. Conclusions: Patients can be safely and expeditiously placed on ECLS across broad indications, utilizing ground transportation in an urban setting. Clinical outcomes are promising and comparable to institutional non-transfers and those reported by Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL