体外膜氧合与常规呼吸机支持在COVID-19急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者中的应用

Q4 Medicine
K. Foofuengmonkolkit, A. Susupaus, J. Udomkusonsri, T. Songdechakraiwut, J. Namchaisiri, P. Sakiyalak
{"title":"体外膜氧合与常规呼吸机支持在COVID-19急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者中的应用","authors":"K. Foofuengmonkolkit, A. Susupaus, J. Udomkusonsri, T. Songdechakraiwut, J. Namchaisiri, P. Sakiyalak","doi":"10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an undesirable outcome of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been widely accepted as a rescue therapy for severe ARDS, its use in COVID19-associated ARDS is still debated.\n\nObjective: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO or conventional ventilator support.\n\nMaterials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study in Bangkok Heart Hospital, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Patients were divided into ECMO and non-ECMO or conventional ventilator support groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU stay, recovery time after extubation, and total length of hospital stay.\n\nResults: Of the 3,053 COVID-19 patients, 36 (1.18%) developed severe ARDS, which 12 were treated with VV-ECMO and 24 with a conventional ventilator. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the ECMO group at 58.3% versus 83.3% (p=0.126). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding was non-significantly more common in the ECMO group at 41.7% versus 25.0% (p=0.306) but there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis in the ECMO group at 0% versus 20.8% (p=0.088). There were no significant differences in any other complications. Six patients, including four in the ECMO group and two in the non-ECMO group underwent cytokine removal via HA330 hemoperfusion, but interleukin-6 did not decrease in these patients.\n\nConclusion: VV-ECMO in COVID-19-associated ARDS patients did not significantly decreased mortality compared to conventional ventilator therapy. A multidisciplinary team should develop an optimal treatment plan for each COVID-19-associated ARDS patient.\n\nKeywords: SARS-CoV-2; Intensive care unit, Artificial respiration","PeriodicalId":17486,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation versus Conventional Ventilator Support in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome\",\"authors\":\"K. Foofuengmonkolkit, A. Susupaus, J. Udomkusonsri, T. Songdechakraiwut, J. Namchaisiri, P. Sakiyalak\",\"doi\":\"10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an undesirable outcome of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been widely accepted as a rescue therapy for severe ARDS, its use in COVID19-associated ARDS is still debated.\\n\\nObjective: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO or conventional ventilator support.\\n\\nMaterials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study in Bangkok Heart Hospital, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Patients were divided into ECMO and non-ECMO or conventional ventilator support groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU stay, recovery time after extubation, and total length of hospital stay.\\n\\nResults: Of the 3,053 COVID-19 patients, 36 (1.18%) developed severe ARDS, which 12 were treated with VV-ECMO and 24 with a conventional ventilator. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the ECMO group at 58.3% versus 83.3% (p=0.126). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding was non-significantly more common in the ECMO group at 41.7% versus 25.0% (p=0.306) but there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis in the ECMO group at 0% versus 20.8% (p=0.088). There were no significant differences in any other complications. Six patients, including four in the ECMO group and two in the non-ECMO group underwent cytokine removal via HA330 hemoperfusion, but interleukin-6 did not decrease in these patients.\\n\\nConclusion: VV-ECMO in COVID-19-associated ARDS patients did not significantly decreased mortality compared to conventional ventilator therapy. A multidisciplinary team should develop an optimal treatment plan for each COVID-19-associated ARDS patient.\\n\\nKeywords: SARS-CoV-2; Intensive care unit, Artificial respiration\",\"PeriodicalId\":17486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2023.01.13728","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)是2019年严重冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的不良后果。尽管静脉-静脉体外膜氧合(VV-ECMO)已被广泛接受为严重ARDS的抢救治疗,但其在covid - 19相关ARDS中的应用仍存在争议。目的:比较VV-ECMO与常规呼吸机支持治疗COVID-19患者的临床疗效。材料和方法:作者于2021年3月至9月在泰国曼谷心脏医院进行了一项回顾性研究。患者分为ECMO组和非ECMO组或常规呼吸机支持组。主要结局为住院死亡率,次要结局为并发症、ICU住院时间、拔管后恢复时间和总住院时间。结果:3053例COVID-19患者中,36例(1.18%)发生严重ARDS,其中VV-ECMO治疗12例,常规呼吸机治疗24例。ECMO组住院死亡率为58.3%,低于83.3% (p=0.126)。ECMO组上消化道出血发生率为41.7%比25.0% (p=0.306),但ECMO组无深静脉血栓形成,发生率为0%比20.8% (p=0.088)。其他并发症无显著差异。6例患者(包括4例ECMO组和2例非ECMO组)通过HA330血液灌流去除细胞因子,但这些患者的白细胞介素-6未降低。结论:与常规呼吸机治疗相比,VV-ECMO对covid -19相关ARDS患者的死亡率没有显著降低。多学科团队应为每位与covid -19相关的ARDS患者制定最佳治疗计划。关键词:SARS-CoV-2;加护病房,人工呼吸
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation versus Conventional Ventilator Support in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is an undesirable outcome of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has been widely accepted as a rescue therapy for severe ARDS, its use in COVID19-associated ARDS is still debated. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with VV-ECMO or conventional ventilator support. Materials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study in Bangkok Heart Hospital, Thailand, between March and September 2021. Patients were divided into ECMO and non-ECMO or conventional ventilator support groups. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were complications, length of ICU stay, recovery time after extubation, and total length of hospital stay. Results: Of the 3,053 COVID-19 patients, 36 (1.18%) developed severe ARDS, which 12 were treated with VV-ECMO and 24 with a conventional ventilator. In-hospital mortality was non-significantly lower in the ECMO group at 58.3% versus 83.3% (p=0.126). Upper gastrointestinal bleeding was non-significantly more common in the ECMO group at 41.7% versus 25.0% (p=0.306) but there were no cases of deep vein thrombosis in the ECMO group at 0% versus 20.8% (p=0.088). There were no significant differences in any other complications. Six patients, including four in the ECMO group and two in the non-ECMO group underwent cytokine removal via HA330 hemoperfusion, but interleukin-6 did not decrease in these patients. Conclusion: VV-ECMO in COVID-19-associated ARDS patients did not significantly decreased mortality compared to conventional ventilator therapy. A multidisciplinary team should develop an optimal treatment plan for each COVID-19-associated ARDS patient. Keywords: SARS-CoV-2; Intensive care unit, Artificial respiration
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
CiteScore
0.40
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信