儿童体外膜氧合止血结局定义:鹿特丹(2019-2023)和墨尔本(2016-2022)队列的挑战。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Joppe Drop, Suelyn Van Den Helm, Natasha Letunica, Enno Wildschut, Matthijs de Hoog, Willem de Boode, Rebecca Barton, Hui Ping Yaw, Fiona Newall, Stephen Horton, Roberto Chiletti, Amy Johansen, Derek Best, Joanne McKittrick, Warwick Butt, Yves d'Udekem, Graeme MacLaren, Vera Ignjatovic, Chantal Attard, C Heleen van Ommen, Paul Monagle
{"title":"儿童体外膜氧合止血结局定义:鹿特丹(2019-2023)和墨尔本(2016-2022)队列的挑战。","authors":"Joppe Drop, Suelyn Van Den Helm, Natasha Letunica, Enno Wildschut, Matthijs de Hoog, Willem de Boode, Rebecca Barton, Hui Ping Yaw, Fiona Newall, Stephen Horton, Roberto Chiletti, Amy Johansen, Derek Best, Joanne McKittrick, Warwick Butt, Yves d'Udekem, Graeme MacLaren, Vera Ignjatovic, Chantal Attard, C Heleen van Ommen, Paul Monagle","doi":"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if a priori standardization of outcome hemostatic definitions alone was adequate to enable useful comparison between two cohorts of pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients, managed according to local practice and protocol.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Comparison of two separate prospective cohort studies performed at different centers with standardized outcome definitions agreed upon a priori.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>General and cardiac PICUs at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) in Melbourne, Australia, and the Sophia Children's Hospital (SCH) in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Children (0-18 yr old) undergoing ECMO.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Although outcome definitions were standardized a priori, the interpretation of surgical interventions varied. The SCH study included 47 ECMO runs (September 2019 to April 2023), and the RCH study included 97 ECMO runs (September 2016 to Jan 2022). Significant differences in patient populations were noted. RCH patients biased toward frequent cardiac ECMO indications, central cannulation, and cardiopulmonary bypass before ECMO. The frequency of outcome ascertainment was not standardized.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This international comparison shows that standardizing hemostatic outcome definitions alone is insufficient for sensible comparison. Uniform interpretation of definitions, consistent frequency of outcome ascertainment, and stratification based on patient populations and ECMO practices are required. Our results highlight the granularity of detail needed for cross-center comparison of hemostatic outcomes in pediatric ECMO. Further work is needed as we move toward potential multicenter trials of pediatric ECMO.</p>","PeriodicalId":19760,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hemostatic Outcome Definitions in Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Challenges in Cohorts From Rotterdam (2019-2023) and Melbourne (2016-2022).\",\"authors\":\"Joppe Drop, Suelyn Van Den Helm, Natasha Letunica, Enno Wildschut, Matthijs de Hoog, Willem de Boode, Rebecca Barton, Hui Ping Yaw, Fiona Newall, Stephen Horton, Roberto Chiletti, Amy Johansen, Derek Best, Joanne McKittrick, Warwick Butt, Yves d'Udekem, Graeme MacLaren, Vera Ignjatovic, Chantal Attard, C Heleen van Ommen, Paul Monagle\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PCC.0000000000003679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if a priori standardization of outcome hemostatic definitions alone was adequate to enable useful comparison between two cohorts of pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients, managed according to local practice and protocol.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Comparison of two separate prospective cohort studies performed at different centers with standardized outcome definitions agreed upon a priori.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>General and cardiac PICUs at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) in Melbourne, Australia, and the Sophia Children's Hospital (SCH) in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Children (0-18 yr old) undergoing ECMO.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Although outcome definitions were standardized a priori, the interpretation of surgical interventions varied. The SCH study included 47 ECMO runs (September 2019 to April 2023), and the RCH study included 97 ECMO runs (September 2016 to Jan 2022). Significant differences in patient populations were noted. RCH patients biased toward frequent cardiac ECMO indications, central cannulation, and cardiopulmonary bypass before ECMO. The frequency of outcome ascertainment was not standardized.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This international comparison shows that standardizing hemostatic outcome definitions alone is insufficient for sensible comparison. Uniform interpretation of definitions, consistent frequency of outcome ascertainment, and stratification based on patient populations and ECMO practices are required. Our results highlight the granularity of detail needed for cross-center comparison of hemostatic outcomes in pediatric ECMO. Further work is needed as we move toward potential multicenter trials of pediatric ECMO.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003679\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000003679","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定仅止血定义的先验标准化是否足以对两组儿童体外膜氧合(ECMO)患者进行有用的比较,并根据当地实践和方案进行管理。设计:比较在不同中心进行的两项独立的前瞻性队列研究,这些研究具有先验的标准化结果定义。地点:澳大利亚墨尔本皇家儿童医院(RCH)和荷兰鹿特丹索菲亚儿童医院(SCH)的普通和心脏picu。患者:接受ECMO的儿童(0-18岁)。干预措施:没有。测量和主要结果:虽然结果定义是标准化的先验,但手术干预的解释各不相同。SCH研究包括47例ECMO(2019年9月至2023年4月),RCH研究包括97例ECMO(2016年9月至2022年1月)。注意到患者群体的显著差异。RCH患者倾向于ECMO前频繁的心脏ECMO指征、中心插管和体外循环。结果确定的频率没有标准化。结论:这项国际比较表明,仅仅标准化止血结局定义不足以进行合理的比较。定义的统一解释,结果确定的一致频率,以及基于患者群体和ECMO实践的分层是必要的。我们的结果强调了跨中心比较儿科ECMO止血结果所需的细节粒度。随着我们向潜在的儿科ECMO多中心试验迈进,还需要进一步的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hemostatic Outcome Definitions in Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Challenges in Cohorts From Rotterdam (2019-2023) and Melbourne (2016-2022).

Objectives: To determine if a priori standardization of outcome hemostatic definitions alone was adequate to enable useful comparison between two cohorts of pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients, managed according to local practice and protocol.

Design: Comparison of two separate prospective cohort studies performed at different centers with standardized outcome definitions agreed upon a priori.

Setting: General and cardiac PICUs at the Royal Children's Hospital (RCH) in Melbourne, Australia, and the Sophia Children's Hospital (SCH) in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Patients: Children (0-18 yr old) undergoing ECMO.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Although outcome definitions were standardized a priori, the interpretation of surgical interventions varied. The SCH study included 47 ECMO runs (September 2019 to April 2023), and the RCH study included 97 ECMO runs (September 2016 to Jan 2022). Significant differences in patient populations were noted. RCH patients biased toward frequent cardiac ECMO indications, central cannulation, and cardiopulmonary bypass before ECMO. The frequency of outcome ascertainment was not standardized.

Conclusions: This international comparison shows that standardizing hemostatic outcome definitions alone is insufficient for sensible comparison. Uniform interpretation of definitions, consistent frequency of outcome ascertainment, and stratification based on patient populations and ECMO practices are required. Our results highlight the granularity of detail needed for cross-center comparison of hemostatic outcomes in pediatric ECMO. Further work is needed as we move toward potential multicenter trials of pediatric ECMO.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine
Pediatric Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
991
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Critical Care Medicine is written for the entire critical care team: pediatricians, neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurses, and others who deal with pediatric patients who are critically ill or injured. International in scope, with editorial board members and contributors from around the world, the Journal includes a full range of scientific content, including clinical articles, scientific investigations, solicited reviews, and abstracts from pediatric critical care meetings. Additionally, the Journal includes abstracts of selected articles published in Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Spanish translations - making news of advances in the field available to pediatric and neonatal intensive care practitioners worldwide.
×
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