Clinical Outcomes of Pregnant and Postpartum Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue therapy for cardiopulmonary failure is expanding in critical care medicine. In this case series, we describe the clinical outcomes of 21 consecutive pregnant or postpartum patients that required venovenous (VV) or venoarterial (VA) ECMO. Our objective was to characterize maternal and fetal survival in peripartum ECMO and better understand ECMO-related complications that occur in this unique patient population. METHODS: Between January 2009 and June 2019, all pregnant and postpartum patients treated with ECMO for respiratory or circulatory failure at a single quaternary referral center were identified. For all patients, indications for ECMO, maternal and neonatal outcomes, details of ECMO support, and anticoagulation and bleeding complications were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-one obstetric patients were treated with ECMO over 10 years. Thirteen patients were treated with VV ECMO and 8 patients were treated with VA ECMO. Six patients were pregnant at the time of cannulation and 3 patients delivered while on ECMO; all 6 maternal and infant dyads survived to hospital discharge. The median gestational age at cannulation was 28 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 24-31). In the postpartum cohort, ECMO initiation ranged from immediately after delivery up to 46 days postpartum. Fifteen women survived (72%). Major bleeding complications requiring surgical intervention were observed in 7 patients (33.3%). Two patients on VV ECMO required bilateral orthotopic lung transplantation and 1 patient on VA ECMO required orthotopic heart transplantation to wean from ECMO. CONCLUSIONS: Survival for mother and neonate are excellent with peripartum ECMO in a high-volume ECMO center. Neonatal and maternal survival was 100% when ECMO was used in the late second or early third trimester. Based on these results, ECMO remains an important treatment option for peripartum patients with cardiopulmonary failure.

An evaluation of multidetector computed tomography in detecting pancreatic injury: results of a multicenter AAST study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to determine the suitability of low-grade pancreatic injuries for nonoperative management have been hindered by the inaccuracy of older computed tomography (CT) technology for detecting pancreatic injury (PI). This retrospective, multicenter American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored trial examined the sensitivity of newer 16- and 64-multidetector CT (MDCT) for detecting PI, and sensitivity/specificity for the identification of pancreatic ductal injury (PDI). METHODS: Patients who received a preoperative 16- or 64-MDCT followed by laparotomy with a documented PI were enrolled. Preoperative MDCT scans were classified as indicating the presence (+) or absence (-) of PI and PDI. Operative notes were reviewed and all patients were confirmed as PI (+), and then classified as PDI (+) or (-). As all patients had PI, an analysis of PI specificity was not possible. PI patients formed the pool for further PDI analysis. As sensitivity and specificity data were available for PDI, multivariate logistic regression was performed for PDI patients using the presence or absence of agreement between CT and operative note findings as an independent variable. Covariates were age, gender, Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, presence of oral contrast, presence of other abdominal injuries, performance of the scan as part of a dedicated pancreas protocol, and image thickness < or =3 mm or > or =5 mm. RESULTS: Twenty centers enrolled 206 PI patients, including 71 PDI (+) patients. Intravenous contrast was used in 203 studies; 69 studies used presence of oral contrast. Eight-nine percent were blunt mechanisms, and 96% were able to have their duct status operatively classified as PDI (+) or (-). The sensitivity of 16-MDCT for all PI was 60.1%, whereas 64-MDCT was 47.2%. For PDI, the sensitivities of 16- and 64-MDCT were 54.0% and 52.4%, respectively, with specificities of 94.8% for 16-MDCT scanners and 90.3% for 64-MDCT scanners. Logistic regression showed that no covariates were associated with an increased likelihood of detecting PDI for either 16- or 64-MDCT scanners. The area under the curve was 0.66 for the 16-MDCT PDI analysis and 0.77 for the 64-MDCT PDI analysis. CONCLUSION: Sixteen and 64-MDCT have low sensitivity for detecting PI and PDI, while exhibiting a high specificity for PDI. Their use as decision-making tools for the nonoperative management of PI are, therefore, limited.