首页> 外文期刊>Journal of International Medical Research >Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation versus conventional mechanical ventilation to treat refractory hypoxemia in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study
【24h】

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation versus conventional mechanical ventilation to treat refractory hypoxemia in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study

机译:血压体外膜氧合与常规机械通气治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者难治性低氧血症:回顾性队列研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Objective To compare the treatment outcome of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at a referral center that started offering VV-EMCO support in 2010. Methods This retrospective cohort study enrolled adults with severe ARDS (PaO _(2)/FiO _(2) ratio of &100 with FiO _(2) of ≥90 or Murray score of ≥3) who were admitted to the intensive care unit of Siriraj Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand) from January 2010 to December 2018. All patients were treated using a low tidal volume (TV) and optimal positive end-expiratory pressure. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Results Sixty-four patients (ECMO, n?=?30; mechanical ventilation, n?=?34) were recruited. There was no significant difference in the baseline PaO _(2)/FiO _(2) ratio (67.2?±?25.7 vs. 76.6?±?16.0), FiO _(2) (97?±?9 vs. 94?±?8), or Murray score (3.4?±?0.5 vs. 3.3?±?0.5) between the ECMO and mechanical ventilation groups. The hospital mortality rate was also not significantly different between the two groups (ECMO, 20/30 [66.7%] vs. mechanical ventilation, 24/34 [70.6%]). Patients who underwent ECMO were ventilated with a significantly lower TV than patients who underwent mechanical ventilation (3.8?±?1.8 vs. 6.6?±?1.4 mL, respectively). Conclusion Although VV-ECMO promoted lower-TV ventilation, it did not improve the in-hospital mortality rate. Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 04031794).
机译:目的比较逆血症患者急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)在2010年开始提供VV-EMCO支持的急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)的逆血患者机械通风的治疗结果。方法参加了这项回顾性队列的研究具有严重ARDS的成年人(PAO _(2)/ fio _(2)的比率为&lt 19&fio _(2)≥90或murray得分≥3),≥3)均被达到Siriraj医院的重症监护单位(曼谷,泰国)从2010年1月到2018年12月。所有患者均采用低潮气量(电视)和最佳的阳性呼气压力处理。主要结果是医院死亡率。结果六十四名患者(ECMO,N?= 30;机械通气,N?= 34)被招募。基线Pao _(2)/ fio _(2)比没有显着差异(67.2?±25.7与76.6?±16.0),FIO_(2)(97?±9 vs. 94? ±8)或默里评分(3.4?±0.5与3.3?±0.5)之间的ECMO和机械通气组之间。两组(ECMO,20/30 [66.7%]与机械通气,24/34 [70.6%])之间也没有显着差异。接受ECMO的患者呼气,比接受机械通气的患者显着更低的电视(3.8?±1.8 vs.6.6?±1.4 ml)。结论虽然VV-ECMO促进了低电视通风,但它没有提高院内死亡率。审判登记:www.clinicaltrials.gov(nct 04031794)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号