• J. Pediatr. Surg. · Aug 2003

    Comparative Study

    Venovenous versus venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

    • Amir Kugelman, Ernesto Gangitano, Juan Pincros, Phuket Tantivit, Ray Taschuk, and Manuel Durand.
    • Department of Neonatology, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Technion-Faculty of Medicine, Haifa, Israel.
    • J. Pediatr. Surg. 2003 Aug 1;38(8):1131-6.

    BackgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has a significant role as a final rescue modality in severe respiratory failure of the newborn with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). The objective of this study was to compare the efficiency of venovenous (VV) versus venoarterial (VA) ECMO in newborns with CDH.MethodsA retrospective report of 11 years experience (1990 through 2001) of a single center, comparing VV and VA ECMO is given. VV ECMO was the preferred rescue modality for respiratory failure unresponsive to maximal medical therapy. Only when the placement of a VV ECMO 14F catheter was not possible, VA ECMO was used. Forty-six patients met ECMO criteria; 26 were treated with VV ECMO and 19 with VA ECMO. One patient underwent conversion from VV to VA ECMO.ResultsBefore ECMO, there was no difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in mean oxygenation index (83 v 83), mean airway pressure (18.4 v 18.9 cm H(2)O), ECMO cannulation age (28 v 20 hours), or in the percentage of patients who needed dopamine and dobutamine (100% v 100%). From November 1994, nitric oxide (NO) was available; before ECMO, 11 of 14 (79%) VV ECMO patients received NO versus 9 of 10 (90%) patients in the VA group. VV ECMO patients were larger (3.34 v 2.77 kg; P <.05) and of advanced gestational age (39.0 v 36.9 wk; P <.05) compared with VA ECMO patients. There was no significant difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in survival rate (18 of 26, 69% v 13 of 19, 68%), ECMO duration (152 v 150 hours), time of extubation (32.0 v 33.5 days), age at discharge (73 v 81 days), or incidence of short-term intracranial complications (3.8% v 10.5%) or myocardial stun (3.8% v 15.8%).ConclusionsThe authors conclude that VV ECMO is as reliable as VA ECMO in newborns with CDH in severe respiratory failure who need ECMO support and who can accommodate the VV double-lumen catheter. Because of its potential advantages, VV ECMO may be the preferred ECMO method in these infants.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…