Utilization and outcomes of nonintubated extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to lung transplant.

IF 6.4 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Alice L Zhou, Maria R Jennings, Armaan F Akbar, Jessica M Ruck, Atharv Oak, Andrew Kalra, Emily L Larson, Alfred J Casillan, Jinny S Ha, Christian A Merlo, Errol L Bush
{"title":"Utilization and outcomes of nonintubated extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to lung transplant.","authors":"Alice L Zhou, Maria R Jennings, Armaan F Akbar, Jessica M Ruck, Atharv Oak, Andrew Kalra, Emily L Larson, Alfred J Casillan, Jinny S Ha, Christian A Merlo, Errol L Bush","doi":"10.1016/j.healun.2024.10.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nonintubated extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been increasingly utilized for patients with severe respiratory failure. Since data on its use as a bridge to lung transplant remain limited, we evaluated its use in a national cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult lung-only transplant recipients bridged with ECMO May 4, 2005 to March 8, 2023 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were categorized by use of ECMO and mechanical ventilation (MV) at transplant (ECMO+MV vs ECMO-only). We compared post-transplant intubation and ECMO at 72 hours, length of stay, and survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 1,599 transplants identified included 902 (56.4%) bridged with ECMO+MV and 697 (43.6%) bridged with ECMO-only. ECMO-only recipients had higher median age (52 vs 49 years, p < 0.001), shorter ischemic times (5.7 vs 6.0 hours, p = 0.003), and similar lung allocation scores (89.5 vs 89.6, p = 0.11). ECMO-only recipients had lower likelihood of intubation at 72 hours (56.5% vs 77.5%; adjusted odds ratio 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25, 0.42], p < 0.001) and shorter lengths of stay (28 vs 35 days; coefficient -0.19 [95% CI: -0.27, -0.11], p < 0.001). ECMO-only recipients had higher 90-day survival (92.1% vs 89.1%; adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) 0.69 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.99], p = 0.04) but similar 1-year (83.1% vs 81.5%; aHR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.67, 1.12], p = 0.27) and 5-year (54.6% vs 54.7%; aHR 0.98 [95% CI: 0.82, 1.17], p = 0.83) survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Nonintubated ECMO bridge to lung transplant was associated with improved perioperative outcomes and short-term survival and should be considered for candidates requiring ECMO.</p>","PeriodicalId":15900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2024.10.021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nonintubated extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been increasingly utilized for patients with severe respiratory failure. Since data on its use as a bridge to lung transplant remain limited, we evaluated its use in a national cohort.

Methods: Adult lung-only transplant recipients bridged with ECMO May 4, 2005 to March 8, 2023 in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were categorized by use of ECMO and mechanical ventilation (MV) at transplant (ECMO+MV vs ECMO-only). We compared post-transplant intubation and ECMO at 72 hours, length of stay, and survival.

Results: The 1,599 transplants identified included 902 (56.4%) bridged with ECMO+MV and 697 (43.6%) bridged with ECMO-only. ECMO-only recipients had higher median age (52 vs 49 years, p < 0.001), shorter ischemic times (5.7 vs 6.0 hours, p = 0.003), and similar lung allocation scores (89.5 vs 89.6, p = 0.11). ECMO-only recipients had lower likelihood of intubation at 72 hours (56.5% vs 77.5%; adjusted odds ratio 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25, 0.42], p < 0.001) and shorter lengths of stay (28 vs 35 days; coefficient -0.19 [95% CI: -0.27, -0.11], p < 0.001). ECMO-only recipients had higher 90-day survival (92.1% vs 89.1%; adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) 0.69 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.99], p = 0.04) but similar 1-year (83.1% vs 81.5%; aHR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.67, 1.12], p = 0.27) and 5-year (54.6% vs 54.7%; aHR 0.98 [95% CI: 0.82, 1.17], p = 0.83) survival.

Conclusions: Nonintubated ECMO bridge to lung transplant was associated with improved perioperative outcomes and short-term survival and should be considered for candidates requiring ECMO.

无插管体外膜肺氧合作为肺移植桥梁的使用情况和结果。
背景:无插管体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)已成为严重呼吸衰竭患者越来越常用的支持方法。由于将 ECMO 用作肺移植桥接的数据仍局限于单中心研究,我们对全国队列中的使用情况进行了评估:方法:我们将器官共享联合网络数据库中 2005 年 4 月 5 日至 2023 年 8 月 3 日期间使用 ECMO 搭桥的成人肺移植受者按移植时使用 ECMO 和机械通气(ECMO+MV vs. 仅 ECMO)进行了分类。我们使用逻辑回归对移植后插管和 72 小时 ECMO 进行了比较,使用负二项回归对住院时间进行了比较,使用 Cox 回归对移植后存活率进行了比较:在已确认的 1,599 例移植中,902 例(56.4%)采用 ECMO+MV 桥接,697 例(43.6%)仅采用 ECMO 桥接。纯 ECMO 受者的中位年龄较高(52 岁对 49 岁,pConclusions:非插管 ECMO 桥接肺移植与改善围手术期预后和短期存活率有关,需要 ECMO 的候选者应考虑采用非插管 ECMO。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
1667
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, the official publication of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, brings readers essential scholarly and timely information in the field of cardio-pulmonary transplantation, mechanical and biological support of the failing heart, advanced lung disease (including pulmonary vascular disease) and cell replacement therapy. Importantly, the journal also serves as a medium of communication of pre-clinical sciences in all these rapidly expanding areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信