7. • Randomized 40 patients with severe ARDS
• Prospective, randomized comparison of ECCO2R and
conventional management
• The main outcome measure was survival at 30 days after
randomization.
• Survival was not significantly different in the 19 mechanical
ventilation (42%) and 21 new therapy (extracorporeal) (33%)
patients (p = 0.8)
8. • Retrospective review.
• January 1990 and July 1996, 142 patient had severe ARF
• 41 patients improved on Conventional treatment
• 100 patients required ECLS (94 Hypoxic)
• Survival 54%
9. How did they Ventilate?
• Lung rest protocol
• PCV
• Plateau pressure <35cm water
• PEEP 10-15.
• Fio2 <50% with arterial sat 80-90%.
• Rate 4-6/min
• Maintaining Co2 around 40mmHg
• Hematocrit 45-48%.
• Tracheostomy done in the first or second day.
10.
11.
12. • Retrospective chart review for the first 50 patients received
ECMO at Glenfield Hospirtal
• Survival Rate 66%
13. • Does ECMO increase 6 months survival without severe
disability in patients with severe respiratory failure compared
to conventional ventilation? And is it cost effective?
14. • Randomized control trial
• N=180
• ECMO (n=90)
• Conventional Manamgement (n=90)
• Setting: 92 Conventional Treatment Centers, 11 Referral
Hospitals and 1 ECMO center in the UK. If included in the trial
participants were transferred to either a conventional
treatment center or to the ECMO center.
• Enrollment: July 2001 to August 2006
• Mean follow-up: 6 months
• Analysis: Intention-to-treat
• Primary outcome: Death or severe disability at 6 months.
15. • Inclusion Criteria:
• Adult 18-65
• Severe resp failure with Murray score >=3 or uncompensated
hypercapnia with PH<7.20
• Exclusion criteria:
• >7 days of high pressure or Fio2 ventilation
• Contraindication to heparin
• Moribund patients
16. • PCV at 30 cm H2O
• PEEP titrated to optimum SaO2
• FiO2 titrated to maintain SaO2 at more than 90%
• Diuresis to dry weight
• Target packed cell volume of 40%,
• Prone positioning
• Full nutrition
22. • Results:
• ECMO is cost effective and does increase survival without severe
disability at 6 months in patients with severe reversible
respiratory failure compared to conventional management in the
UK.
26. • Observational study
• Of 68 adult and pediatric patients who were treated with
ECMO between June 1 and August 31, 2009 patient with H1N1
in 2009 outbreak
32. ECMO Indications
• Heart and lung Support
• Emergent or elective
• Mortality of 40%
ELSO Guidelines August 2017
33. Respiratory failure indications
• Refractory Hypoxia:
• Consider ECMO with mortality >50%:P/F ratio < 150 on Fio2 >90%
Murray score 2-3.
• Do it for Mortality >80%: P/F ratio <100 on Fio2 >90% with
Murray score 3-4.
• CO2 retention on mechanical ventilation despite high
Pplat (>30 cm H2O)
• Severe air leak syndromes
• Need for intubation in a patient on lung transplant list
34. ECMO contraindications
1. Mechanical ventilation at high settings (FiO2 >.9, P-plat >30)
for7 days or more.
2. Conditions incompatible with normal life if the patient
recovers.
3. Preexisting conditions which affect the quality of life (CNS
status, end stage malignancy, risk of systemic bleeding with
anticoagulation).
4. Age and size of patient
5. Futility
ELSO Guidelines August 2017
37. How would you ventilate?
• ELSO:
• Lung rest: Low rate with long inspiratory time, low plateau
inspiratory pressure (< 25 cm H2O) low FiO2 (under 30%)
• APRV and CPAP are other acceptable options.
• First 24-48 hours:
• PC 25/15
• I:E 2:1
• Rate 5
• Fio2 50%
• Pplt <25
• PEEP as high s tolerated!
After 48 hours
• PC 20/10
• Plus spontaneous breaths
• Fio2 20-40%
ELSO Guidelines August 2017
38.
39. Recruitment maneuvers?
• No. Till CXR improves and Vt > 4cc/kg and Cilley test is
positive.
• Cilley test is increase Fio2 to 100% and watch for how fast
Spo2 changes. Positive = Fast.
• How to do it?
• CPAP of 25cmH2o, or
• PSV 25/10, Rate 5, I:E 3:1 10min/hr
40. O2 Sat?
• Spo2 around 80%
• Giving Normal heart function and Hematocrit > 40%
• Fio2 <40% on vent
Nine centers V/A ecmo
Survival with ECMO therapy is 3% to 23%,
Extracorporeal CO2 removal uses low flow and doesn’t give support
the conventional treatment used in the trial was Pressure Controlled Inverse Ratio Ventilation
the experimental arm of the trial used low flow ECCO2R in a group of patients who had severe lung disease, which warranted higher flow ECMO with full support of oxygenation and carbon-dioxide removal. This was demonstrated by the need to increase the airway pressure in the ECCO2R group half-way through the study.
Michigan group
Pre-ECLS predictors of outcome survival or mortality were age, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and pre- ECLS ventilator days. Patients with longer duration of mechanical ventilation before the institution of ECLS had poorer outcomes. This may be related to ventilator-induced injury superimposed on previously injured lung. Studies based on animal data have shown that irreversible lung injury is promoted during mechanical ventilation by continued barotrauma,39 volutrauma,40 and oxygen toxicity.
In general, older patients with severe hypoxemia who underwent prolonged pre-ECLS ventilator treatment had the poorest survival.
A limitation of this analysis, however, is that it does not provide distinction of the level of ventilator pressures or FiO2 during the course of ventilation before ECLS.
Followed ARDSnet
51,000 patients have received extracorporeal life support (ECLS).
50% (>25,000) were neonatal respiratory
failure, with a 75% overall survival to discharge or transfer
All cases submitted to the Registry through June 2012 are
included in this analysis
Overall survival for adult respiratory ECLS is 55%
Australia and New Zealand Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ANZ ECMO) Influenza Investigators
excluded neonates or patients treated with ECMO for primary cardiac failure, following heart and/or lung transplantation or cardiac surgery
Patients with an alternative diagnosis and who had no virus isolated.
The patients who were treated with ECMO had longer duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR], 18 [9-27] vs 8 [4-14] days; P=.001), ICU stay (median [IQR], 22 [13-32] vs 12 [7-18] days; P=.001), and greater ICU mortality (14 [23%] vs 12 [9%]; P=.01).
Data were obtained from the Swine Flu Triage study (SwiFT), which was a prospective cohort study of patients with suspected or confirmed H1N1 who were referred and assessed as requiring critical care.