Association of Standardized Liberation Trials and Duration of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure.

Ricardo Teijeiro-Paradis, Laveena Munshi, Niall D Ferguson, Kuan Liu, Eddy Fan
{"title":"Association of Standardized Liberation Trials and Duration of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure.","authors":"Ricardo Teijeiro-Paradis, Laveena Munshi, Niall D Ferguson, Kuan Liu, Eddy Fan","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202412-1252OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Rationale:</b> There is a paucity of evidence around strategies to liberate patients from venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory failure. <b>Objectives:</b> The primary aim of this study was to determine if adopting standardized liberation trials (SLTs) for VV ECMO is associated with the duration of ECMO. The secondary aim was to identify factors associated with unsafe liberation and the effects of unsafe liberation on mortality to intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. <b>Methods:</b> This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients on VV ECMO for severe respiratory failure comparing endpoints between intervention (SLT) and control (no SLT) periods. <b>Results:</b> A total of 262 patients were included in the study, 13% (35 of 262) received SLTs, and 150 patients were decannulated from ECMO. Implementing SLTs was strongly associated with the duration of VV ECMO to first successful liberation trial (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16 to 3.06]; <i>P</i> = 0.01) and decannulation (HR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.06]; <i>P</i> = 0.01) without increasing the frequency of unsafe liberation (21% [5 of 23] with SLTs vs. 19% [24 of 127] without SLTs; odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, -0.4 to 3.5]; <i>P</i> = 0.7). Unsafe liberation was strongly associated with ICU mortality (HR, 4.15 [95% CI, 1.24 to 13.9]; <i>P</i> = 0.02). Factors associated with unsafe liberation were respiratory rate (OR, 1.49 per 5 breaths/min increase [95% CI, 1.07 to 2.08]; <i>P</i> = 0.02) and ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (OR, 0.73 per 30 mm Hg increase [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.93]; <i>P</i> = 0.01) immediately before decannulation. <b>Conclusions:</b> Incorporating SLTs was significantly associated with the duration of VV ECMO, without increasing the frequency of unsafe liberation. Unsafe liberation was associated with increased ICU mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":"897-904"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202412-1252OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: There is a paucity of evidence around strategies to liberate patients from venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for acute respiratory failure. Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to determine if adopting standardized liberation trials (SLTs) for VV ECMO is associated with the duration of ECMO. The secondary aim was to identify factors associated with unsafe liberation and the effects of unsafe liberation on mortality to intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients on VV ECMO for severe respiratory failure comparing endpoints between intervention (SLT) and control (no SLT) periods. Results: A total of 262 patients were included in the study, 13% (35 of 262) received SLTs, and 150 patients were decannulated from ECMO. Implementing SLTs was strongly associated with the duration of VV ECMO to first successful liberation trial (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16 to 3.06]; P = 0.01) and decannulation (HR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.0 to 3.06]; P = 0.01) without increasing the frequency of unsafe liberation (21% [5 of 23] with SLTs vs. 19% [24 of 127] without SLTs; odds ratio [OR], 1.19 [95% CI, -0.4 to 3.5]; P = 0.7). Unsafe liberation was strongly associated with ICU mortality (HR, 4.15 [95% CI, 1.24 to 13.9]; P = 0.02). Factors associated with unsafe liberation were respiratory rate (OR, 1.49 per 5 breaths/min increase [95% CI, 1.07 to 2.08]; P = 0.02) and ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (OR, 0.73 per 30 mm Hg increase [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.93]; P = 0.01) immediately before decannulation. Conclusions: Incorporating SLTs was significantly associated with the duration of VV ECMO, without increasing the frequency of unsafe liberation. Unsafe liberation was associated with increased ICU mortality.

急性呼吸衰竭患者标准化解放试验与V-V ECMO持续时间的关系。
理由:目前缺乏关于将患者从静脉-静脉体外膜氧合(V-V ECMO)中解放出来治疗急性呼吸衰竭的证据。目的:本研究的主要目的是确定V-V ECMO采用标准化解放试验(SLTs)是否与ECMO持续时间相关。次要目的是确定与不安全解放相关的因素,以及不安全解放对ICU出院死亡率的影响。方法:这是一项单中心回顾性队列研究,对V-V ECMO治疗严重呼吸衰竭的患者进行研究,比较干预期(SLT)和对照组(无SLT)期间的终点。主要结果:共纳入262例患者,13%(35/262)患者接受了slt治疗,150例患者从ECMO中脱管。实施SLTs与V-V ECMO至首次成功解放试验的持续时间(HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.16-3.06, p = 0.01)和去管术(HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.0-3.06, p = 0.01)强烈相关,而不增加不安全解放的频率(SLTs - 21% [5/23]) vs (No-SLTs - 19% [24/127]) (OR 1.19;95% CI - 0.4-3.5, p = 0.7)。不安全解放与ICU死亡率密切相关(HR 4.15, 95% CI 1.24-13.9, p = 0.02)。与不安全释放相关的因素是拔管前的呼吸率(OR 1.49 / 5次呼吸/min增加,95% CI 1.07-2.08, p =0.02)和PaO2/FiO2 (OR 0.73 / 30 mmHg增加,95% CI 0.57-0.93, p = 0.01)。结论:合并SLTs与V-V ECMO持续时间显著相关,且不增加不安全解放的频率。不安全解放与ICU死亡率增加有关。
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
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信