Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Use in Pediatric Trauma: A Report from the National Trauma Data Bank

2020 ◽  
Vol 231 (4) ◽  
pp. S197
Author(s):  
Eric W. Etchill ◽  
Mark L. Kovler ◽  
Felipe Pedroso ◽  
Melania Bembea ◽  
Alejandro E. Garcia ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110242
Author(s):  
Natthida Owattanapanich ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Brad Allen ◽  
Meghan Lewis ◽  
Reynold Henry ◽  
...  

Background Albeit low survival rates, resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) is considered standard for selected trauma patients. Because it has potential for rapid cardiopulmonary rescue, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may augment RT. The aim of this study was to identify the impact of ECMO on trauma patients that recently underwent RT after injury. Study Design All patients who underwent RT were identified from the National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2017). Patients were excluded if they died within 60 minutes, underwent delayed ECMO, and/or had missing data. Delayed ECMO group was defined as those patients undergoing ECMO after 1 hour following RT. Results Out of 8 694 272 injured patients, 10 106 (.1%) underwent RT. Median age was 31 years [23-45], 86% male. Penetrating injury was the dominant mechanism (62%). Of these, .6% (23) underwent immediate ECMO. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients were significantly younger (23[17-33] vs. 31[23-46], p .003) and had significantly higher chest abbreviated injury scale scores (5[4-5] vs. 3[3-4], P < .001). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients achieved significantly higher rate of return of spontaneous circulation (96% vs. 70%, p .007) and had nonsignificant trend of improved mortality (52% vs. 63%, p .260). Conclusion Immediate ECMO may be a useful therapeutic modality after RT. It achieves higher ROSC rates with opportunity for improved survival. Future prospective study is warranted.


2010 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
pp. 315
Author(s):  
H. Basdag ◽  
T. Oyetunji ◽  
O.B. Bolorundoro ◽  
E.R. Haut ◽  
K.A. Stevens ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward H. Kincaid ◽  
Michael C. Chang ◽  
R. W. Letton ◽  
John G. Chen ◽  
J. Wayne Meredith

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 1127-1133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Cunningham ◽  
Elizabeth Dewey ◽  
Nicholas A. Hamilton ◽  
Martin A. Schreiber ◽  
Sanjay Krishnaswami ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 219 (4) ◽  
pp. e130
Author(s):  
Kristy Rialon ◽  
Brian R. Englum ◽  
Brian C. Gulack ◽  
Syamal D. Bhattacharya ◽  
Lindsay Talbot ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Alan Cook ◽  
Steven Shackford ◽  
Turner Osler ◽  
Frederick Rogers ◽  
Kennith Sartorelli ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua A. Watson ◽  
Brian R. Englum ◽  
Jina Kim ◽  
Obinna O. Adibe ◽  
Henry E. Rice ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 81 (10) ◽  
pp. 927-931
Author(s):  
Shin Miyata ◽  
Tobias Haltmeier ◽  
Kenji Inaba ◽  
Kazuhide Matsushima ◽  
Catherine Goodhue ◽  
...  

The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma stratification system for trauma centers presumes that increasing levels of resources will improve patient outcomes. Although some supportive data exist in adult trauma, there is a paucity of evidence demonstrating improved survival in pediatric trauma when patients are treated primarily at Level I versus Level II pediatric trauma centers. We hypothesized that there is no difference in the mortality of comparably injured pediatric patients treated at these two types of facilities. The study population consists of all severely injured pediatric patients (18 years old or younger, injury severity score > 15) registered in the National Trauma Data Bank, treated in designated pediatric trauma centers. A total of 13,803 patients were included in the analysis and were separated into two groups: Pediatric Level I trauma center (n = 9690) and Pediatric Level II trauma center (n = 4113). Although analysis of the clinical characteristics of the unmatched groups showed significant differences including mortality rate (11.7% vs 15.4%, P < 0.001), case matching technique, comparing 2956 pairs, successfully eliminated demographic differences and, when adjusted for injury severity, showed no difference in mortality between center types (10.0% vs 10.1%, P = 0.966, odds ratio of mortality = 0.996 and 95% confidence interval = 0.841–1.180). Subgroup analyses including Glasgow Coma Scale < 9, need for immediate procedures, and ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases) code groupings indicative of serious injury also failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences in mortality between trauma center types.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document