A new phosphorylcholine-coated polymethylpentene oxygenator for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a preliminary experience.

Phosphorylcholine coating has a major role in the improvement of biocompatibility, durability and antihrombogenicity of the circuit for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Moreover, if heparin-induced thrombocytopenia ensues, removal of all the sources of heparin is challenging if the circuit is coated with heparin. We report our preliminary experience with the new EUROSETS A.L.ONE ECMO oxygenator (Eurosets, Medolla, MO, Italy), which is aimed at providing better biocompatibility thanks to its full coating with phosphorylcholine. We retrospectively collected data on the 16 patients supported with ECMO and with the EUROSETS A.L.ONE ECMO oxygenator at San Raffaele Hospital. Mean ECMO duration was 6 ± 4 days, and 37.5% of the patients died on ECMO. Four episodes of major bleeding and three episodes of minor bleeding were recorded. The oxygenator had an excellent performance in gas exchange and the median pressure drop was 57 (26-85) mmHg at full blood flow (2.5 L/m2/min). The EUROSETS A.L.ONE ECMO oxygenator was an excellent device in our preliminary experience. Further evaluation on a larger sample is encouraged.

Bystander-initiated chest compression-only CPR is better than standard CPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has a low survival rate to hospital discharge. Recent studies compared a simplified form of CPR, based on chest compression alone versus standard CPR including ventilation. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, focusing on survival at hospital discharge. METHODS: We extensively searched the published literature on out-of hospital CPR for non traumatic cardiac arrest in different databases. RESULTS: We identified only three randomized trials on this topic, including witnessed and not-witnessed cardiac arrests. When pooling them together with a meta-analytic approach, we found that there is already clinical and statistical evidence to support the superiority of the compression-only CPR in terms of survival at hospital discharge, as 211/1842 (11.5%) patients in the chest compression alone group versus 178/1895 (9.4%) in the standard CPR group were alive at hospital discharge: odds ratio from both Peto and DerSimonian-Laird methods =0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.99), p for effect =0.04, p for heterogeneity =0.69, inconsistency =0%). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence strongly support the superiority of bystander compression-only CPR. Reasons for the best efficacy of chest compression-only CPR include a better willingness to start CPR by bystanders, the low quality of mouth-to-mouth ventilation and a detrimental effect of too long interruptions of chest compressions during ventilation. Based on our findings, compression-only CPR should be recommended as the preferred CPR technique performed by untrained bystander.