Predictors for Successful Weaning from Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

IF 2.7 4区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2025-02-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S482316

Zhisheng Duan, Heping Xie, Huaping Zhong, Shuo Hu, Xu Chen, Ziyou Liu

{"title":"Predictors for Successful Weaning from Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.","authors":"Zhisheng Duan, Heping Xie, Huaping Zhong, Shuo Hu, Xu Chen, Ziyou Liu","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S482316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the predictors of successful weaning from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) among patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in our centre.Methods: The clinical data of patients with severe ARDS who were treated with VV-ECMO between January 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively analysed. Due to the outcomes of weaning from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), the considered patients with ARDS were divided into a successful weaning group and an unsuccessful weaning group. Logistic regression analysis was employed to evaluate predictors for successful VV-ECMO weaning among patients with severe ARDS.Results: A total of 65 patients with severe ARDS were included for analysis. Among them, 31 (47.69%) patients were grouped into the successful weaning group, while 34 (52.30%) patients were grouped into the unsuccessful weaning group. Univariate analysis showed that Age (odds ratio [OR] =0.939; 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.896-0.983; p = 0.008), APACHEII scores before ECMO (OR =0.651; 95% CI =0.537-0.789; p < 0.001), Renal insufficiency (OR =0.061; 95% CI =0.012 -0.298; p = 0.001), MAP before ECMO (OR =1.246; 95% CI =1.114-1.392; p<0.001), PaO2 during ECMO (OR =1.083; 95% CI =1.033-1.135; p = 0.001), and CRRT (OR =0.080; 95% CI =0.022-0.285; p = 0.008) were identified as an independent predictor of successful VV-ECMO weaning. After multivariate analysis was performed, APACHE II scores before ECMO (OR = 0.651; 95% CI = 0.462-0.919; p = 0.015) were identified as independent predictors for successful VV-ECMO weaning.Conclusion: In conclusion, in severe ARDS patients, lower APACHE II scores predicted successful wean from VV-ECMO.","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"471-477"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11830941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S482316","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the predictors of successful weaning from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) among patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in our centre.

Methods: The clinical data of patients with severe ARDS who were treated with VV-ECMO between January 2019 and January 2022 were retrospectively analysed. Due to the outcomes of weaning from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), the considered patients with ARDS were divided into a successful weaning group and an unsuccessful weaning group. Logistic regression analysis was employed to evaluate predictors for successful VV-ECMO weaning among patients with severe ARDS.

Results: A total of 65 patients with severe ARDS were included for analysis. Among them, 31 (47.69%) patients were grouped into the successful weaning group, while 34 (52.30%) patients were grouped into the unsuccessful weaning group. Univariate analysis showed that Age (odds ratio [OR] =0.939; 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.896-0.983; p = 0.008), APACHEII scores before ECMO (OR =0.651; 95% CI =0.537-0.789; p < 0.001), Renal insufficiency (OR =0.061; 95% CI =0.012 -0.298; p = 0.001), MAP before ECMO (OR =1.246; 95% CI =1.114-1.392; p<0.001), PaO2 during ECMO (OR =1.083; 95% CI =1.033-1.135; p = 0.001), and CRRT (OR =0.080; 95% CI =0.022-0.285; p = 0.008) were identified as an independent predictor of successful VV-ECMO weaning. After multivariate analysis was performed, APACHE II scores before ECMO (OR = 0.651; 95% CI = 0.462-0.919; p = 0.015) were identified as independent predictors for successful VV-ECMO weaning.

Conclusion: In conclusion, in severe ARDS patients, lower APACHE II scores predicted successful wean from VV-ECMO.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

2.90%

发文量

242

审稿时长

16 weeks

期刊介绍： Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Public and community health Policy and law Preventative and predictive healthcare Risk and hazard management Epidemiology, detection and screening Lifestyle and diet modification Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs Health and safety and occupational health Healthcare services provision Health literacy and education Advertising and promotion of health issues Health economic evaluations and resource management Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.