Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in infants with meconium aspiration syndrome

A decade of experience with venovenous ECMO

Amir Kugelman, Ernesto Gangitano, Ray Taschuk, Raul Garza, Arieh Riskin, Cynthia (Cindy) McEvoy, Manuel Durand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Despite the emergence of new therapies for respiratory failure of the newborn with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has a significant role as a rescue modality in these infants. Our objective was to compare the use of venovenous (VV) vs venoarterial (VA) ECMO in newborns with MAS who need ECMO and to ascertain the impact of new therapies in these infants during the last decade. We also evaluated how disease severity or time of ECMO initiation affected mortality and morbidity. Methods: A report of 12 years experience (1990-2002) of a single center, comparing VV and VA ECMO, is given. Venovenous ECMO was the preferred rescue modality for respiratory failure unresponsive to maximal medical therapy. Venoarterial ECMO was used only when the placement of a VV ECMO 14-F catheter was not possible; 128 patients met ECMO criteria, 114 were treated with VV ECMO, and 12 with VA ECMO. Two patients were converted from VV to VA ECMO. Results: Venovenous and VA ECMO patients had comparable birth weight (mean ± SEM, 3.48 ± 0.05 vs 3.35 ± 0.15 kg) and gestational age (40.3 ± 0.1 vs 40.7 ± 0.3 weeks). Before ECMO, there was no difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in oxygenation index (60 ± 3 vs 63 ± 8), mean airway pressure (19.5 ± 0.4 vs 20.8 ± 1.5 cm H2O), alveolar-arterial O2 gradient (630 ± 2 vs 632 ± 4 torr), ECMO cannulation age (median [25th-75th percentiles], 23 [14-47] vs 26 [14-123] hours), or in the % of patients who needed vasopressors/inotropes (98% vs 100%). From November 1994, inhaled nitric oxide (NO) was available. Before VV ECMO, 67% of the patients received NO, 24% received surfactant, and 48% were treated with high-frequency ventilation (HFV). There was no significant difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in survival rate (94% vs 92%), ECMO duration (88 [64-116] vs 94 [55-130] hours), time of extubation (9 [7-11] vs 14 [9-15] days), age at discharge (23 [18-30] vs 27 [15-41] days), or incidence of short-term intracranial complications (5.3% vs 16.7%). For the total cohort of 126 infants, indices of disease severity (oxygenation index, alveolar-arterial O2 gradient, mean airway pressure) did not correlate with outcome measures. Delay in ECMO initiation (>96 hours) was associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and hospitalization (P <.01). New therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) in the second part of the decade were associated with a longer ECMO duration (98 [80-131] vs 87 [60-116] hours; P <.05), no delay in ECMO initiation time (23 [10-40] vs 24 [14-52] hours), and no significant change in survival (97% vs 92.5%). No patient was treated with VA ECMO after 1994. Conclusions: Venovenous ECMO is as reliable as VA ECMO in newborns with MAS in severe respiratory failure who need ECMO. Delay in ECMO initiation may result in prolonged mechanical ventilation and increased length of hospital stay. The emergence of new conventional therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) and particularly increased experience enable sole use of VV ECMO with no significant change in survival in infants with MAS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1082-1089
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Pediatric Surgery
Volume40
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2005

Fingerprint

Meconium Aspiration Syndrome
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
High-Frequency Ventilation
Nitric Oxide
Surface-Active Agents
Respiratory Insufficiency
Newborn Infant

Keywords

  • Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)
  • High-frequency ventilation
  • Meconium aspiration syndrome
  • Nitric oxide
  • Surfactant
  • Venoarterial ECMO
  • Venovenous ECMO

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in infants with meconium aspiration syndrome : A decade of experience with venovenous ECMO. / Kugelman, Amir; Gangitano, Ernesto; Taschuk, Ray; Garza, Raul; Riskin, Arieh; McEvoy, Cynthia (Cindy); Durand, Manuel.

In: Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 40, No. 7, 07.2005, p. 1082-1089.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kugelman, Amir ; Gangitano, Ernesto ; Taschuk, Ray ; Garza, Raul ; Riskin, Arieh ; McEvoy, Cynthia (Cindy) ; Durand, Manuel. / Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in infants with meconium aspiration syndrome : A decade of experience with venovenous ECMO. In: Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2005 ; Vol. 40, No. 7. pp. 1082-1089.
@article{3d83eadea5674e669ba32665a636fbe4,
title = "Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in infants with meconium aspiration syndrome: A decade of experience with venovenous ECMO",
abstract = "Background: Despite the emergence of new therapies for respiratory failure of the newborn with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has a significant role as a rescue modality in these infants. Our objective was to compare the use of venovenous (VV) vs venoarterial (VA) ECMO in newborns with MAS who need ECMO and to ascertain the impact of new therapies in these infants during the last decade. We also evaluated how disease severity or time of ECMO initiation affected mortality and morbidity. Methods: A report of 12 years experience (1990-2002) of a single center, comparing VV and VA ECMO, is given. Venovenous ECMO was the preferred rescue modality for respiratory failure unresponsive to maximal medical therapy. Venoarterial ECMO was used only when the placement of a VV ECMO 14-F catheter was not possible; 128 patients met ECMO criteria, 114 were treated with VV ECMO, and 12 with VA ECMO. Two patients were converted from VV to VA ECMO. Results: Venovenous and VA ECMO patients had comparable birth weight (mean ± SEM, 3.48 ± 0.05 vs 3.35 ± 0.15 kg) and gestational age (40.3 ± 0.1 vs 40.7 ± 0.3 weeks). Before ECMO, there was no difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in oxygenation index (60 ± 3 vs 63 ± 8), mean airway pressure (19.5 ± 0.4 vs 20.8 ± 1.5 cm H2O), alveolar-arterial O2 gradient (630 ± 2 vs 632 ± 4 torr), ECMO cannulation age (median [25th-75th percentiles], 23 [14-47] vs 26 [14-123] hours), or in the {\%} of patients who needed vasopressors/inotropes (98{\%} vs 100{\%}). From November 1994, inhaled nitric oxide (NO) was available. Before VV ECMO, 67{\%} of the patients received NO, 24{\%} received surfactant, and 48{\%} were treated with high-frequency ventilation (HFV). There was no significant difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in survival rate (94{\%} vs 92{\%}), ECMO duration (88 [64-116] vs 94 [55-130] hours), time of extubation (9 [7-11] vs 14 [9-15] days), age at discharge (23 [18-30] vs 27 [15-41] days), or incidence of short-term intracranial complications (5.3{\%} vs 16.7{\%}). For the total cohort of 126 infants, indices of disease severity (oxygenation index, alveolar-arterial O2 gradient, mean airway pressure) did not correlate with outcome measures. Delay in ECMO initiation (>96 hours) was associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and hospitalization (P <.01). New therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) in the second part of the decade were associated with a longer ECMO duration (98 [80-131] vs 87 [60-116] hours; P <.05), no delay in ECMO initiation time (23 [10-40] vs 24 [14-52] hours), and no significant change in survival (97{\%} vs 92.5{\%}). No patient was treated with VA ECMO after 1994. Conclusions: Venovenous ECMO is as reliable as VA ECMO in newborns with MAS in severe respiratory failure who need ECMO. Delay in ECMO initiation may result in prolonged mechanical ventilation and increased length of hospital stay. The emergence of new conventional therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) and particularly increased experience enable sole use of VV ECMO with no significant change in survival in infants with MAS.",
keywords = "Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), High-frequency ventilation, Meconium aspiration syndrome, Nitric oxide, Surfactant, Venoarterial ECMO, Venovenous ECMO",
author = "Amir Kugelman and Ernesto Gangitano and Ray Taschuk and Raul Garza and Arieh Riskin and McEvoy, {Cynthia (Cindy)} and Manuel Durand",
year = "2005",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.03.045",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "1082--1089",
journal = "Journal of Pediatric Surgery",
issn = "0022-3468",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in infants with meconium aspiration syndrome

T2 - A decade of experience with venovenous ECMO

AU - Kugelman, Amir

AU - Gangitano, Ernesto

AU - Taschuk, Ray

AU - Garza, Raul

AU - Riskin, Arieh

AU - McEvoy, Cynthia (Cindy)

AU - Durand, Manuel

PY - 2005/7

Y1 - 2005/7

N2 - Background: Despite the emergence of new therapies for respiratory failure of the newborn with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has a significant role as a rescue modality in these infants. Our objective was to compare the use of venovenous (VV) vs venoarterial (VA) ECMO in newborns with MAS who need ECMO and to ascertain the impact of new therapies in these infants during the last decade. We also evaluated how disease severity or time of ECMO initiation affected mortality and morbidity. Methods: A report of 12 years experience (1990-2002) of a single center, comparing VV and VA ECMO, is given. Venovenous ECMO was the preferred rescue modality for respiratory failure unresponsive to maximal medical therapy. Venoarterial ECMO was used only when the placement of a VV ECMO 14-F catheter was not possible; 128 patients met ECMO criteria, 114 were treated with VV ECMO, and 12 with VA ECMO. Two patients were converted from VV to VA ECMO. Results: Venovenous and VA ECMO patients had comparable birth weight (mean ± SEM, 3.48 ± 0.05 vs 3.35 ± 0.15 kg) and gestational age (40.3 ± 0.1 vs 40.7 ± 0.3 weeks). Before ECMO, there was no difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in oxygenation index (60 ± 3 vs 63 ± 8), mean airway pressure (19.5 ± 0.4 vs 20.8 ± 1.5 cm H2O), alveolar-arterial O2 gradient (630 ± 2 vs 632 ± 4 torr), ECMO cannulation age (median [25th-75th percentiles], 23 [14-47] vs 26 [14-123] hours), or in the % of patients who needed vasopressors/inotropes (98% vs 100%). From November 1994, inhaled nitric oxide (NO) was available. Before VV ECMO, 67% of the patients received NO, 24% received surfactant, and 48% were treated with high-frequency ventilation (HFV). There was no significant difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in survival rate (94% vs 92%), ECMO duration (88 [64-116] vs 94 [55-130] hours), time of extubation (9 [7-11] vs 14 [9-15] days), age at discharge (23 [18-30] vs 27 [15-41] days), or incidence of short-term intracranial complications (5.3% vs 16.7%). For the total cohort of 126 infants, indices of disease severity (oxygenation index, alveolar-arterial O2 gradient, mean airway pressure) did not correlate with outcome measures. Delay in ECMO initiation (>96 hours) was associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and hospitalization (P <.01). New therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) in the second part of the decade were associated with a longer ECMO duration (98 [80-131] vs 87 [60-116] hours; P <.05), no delay in ECMO initiation time (23 [10-40] vs 24 [14-52] hours), and no significant change in survival (97% vs 92.5%). No patient was treated with VA ECMO after 1994. Conclusions: Venovenous ECMO is as reliable as VA ECMO in newborns with MAS in severe respiratory failure who need ECMO. Delay in ECMO initiation may result in prolonged mechanical ventilation and increased length of hospital stay. The emergence of new conventional therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) and particularly increased experience enable sole use of VV ECMO with no significant change in survival in infants with MAS.

AB - Background: Despite the emergence of new therapies for respiratory failure of the newborn with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has a significant role as a rescue modality in these infants. Our objective was to compare the use of venovenous (VV) vs venoarterial (VA) ECMO in newborns with MAS who need ECMO and to ascertain the impact of new therapies in these infants during the last decade. We also evaluated how disease severity or time of ECMO initiation affected mortality and morbidity. Methods: A report of 12 years experience (1990-2002) of a single center, comparing VV and VA ECMO, is given. Venovenous ECMO was the preferred rescue modality for respiratory failure unresponsive to maximal medical therapy. Venoarterial ECMO was used only when the placement of a VV ECMO 14-F catheter was not possible; 128 patients met ECMO criteria, 114 were treated with VV ECMO, and 12 with VA ECMO. Two patients were converted from VV to VA ECMO. Results: Venovenous and VA ECMO patients had comparable birth weight (mean ± SEM, 3.48 ± 0.05 vs 3.35 ± 0.15 kg) and gestational age (40.3 ± 0.1 vs 40.7 ± 0.3 weeks). Before ECMO, there was no difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in oxygenation index (60 ± 3 vs 63 ± 8), mean airway pressure (19.5 ± 0.4 vs 20.8 ± 1.5 cm H2O), alveolar-arterial O2 gradient (630 ± 2 vs 632 ± 4 torr), ECMO cannulation age (median [25th-75th percentiles], 23 [14-47] vs 26 [14-123] hours), or in the % of patients who needed vasopressors/inotropes (98% vs 100%). From November 1994, inhaled nitric oxide (NO) was available. Before VV ECMO, 67% of the patients received NO, 24% received surfactant, and 48% were treated with high-frequency ventilation (HFV). There was no significant difference between VV and VA ECMO patients in survival rate (94% vs 92%), ECMO duration (88 [64-116] vs 94 [55-130] hours), time of extubation (9 [7-11] vs 14 [9-15] days), age at discharge (23 [18-30] vs 27 [15-41] days), or incidence of short-term intracranial complications (5.3% vs 16.7%). For the total cohort of 126 infants, indices of disease severity (oxygenation index, alveolar-arterial O2 gradient, mean airway pressure) did not correlate with outcome measures. Delay in ECMO initiation (>96 hours) was associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and hospitalization (P <.01). New therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) in the second part of the decade were associated with a longer ECMO duration (98 [80-131] vs 87 [60-116] hours; P <.05), no delay in ECMO initiation time (23 [10-40] vs 24 [14-52] hours), and no significant change in survival (97% vs 92.5%). No patient was treated with VA ECMO after 1994. Conclusions: Venovenous ECMO is as reliable as VA ECMO in newborns with MAS in severe respiratory failure who need ECMO. Delay in ECMO initiation may result in prolonged mechanical ventilation and increased length of hospital stay. The emergence of new conventional therapies (NO, HFV, surfactant) and particularly increased experience enable sole use of VV ECMO with no significant change in survival in infants with MAS.

KW - Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)

KW - High-frequency ventilation

KW - Meconium aspiration syndrome

KW - Nitric oxide

KW - Surfactant

KW - Venoarterial ECMO

KW - Venovenous ECMO

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=22044454257&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=22044454257&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.03.045

DO - 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.03.045

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 1082

EP - 1089

JO - Journal of Pediatric Surgery

JF - Journal of Pediatric Surgery

SN - 0022-3468

IS - 7

ER -