ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate contemporary clinical practice in the management of venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in critically ill patients with bacterial pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, 48 patients with severe respiratory failure due to bacterial pneumonia receiving VV ECMO therapy in five experienced European ECMO centres were included. Ventilator and ECMO settings were analysed. RESULTS: Ventilator settings showed great variability between participating centres, particularly relating to positive end-expiratory pressure, peak inspiratory pressure and driving pressure. Different strategies in cannulation, ECMO setting and weaning procedures were also observed. CONCLUSION: There is great diversity in management modalities for ventilator and ECMO settings for patients with bacterial pneumonia. Our study emphasises the lack of clinical consensus in VV ECMO management.
Subject(s)
Catheterization/methods , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Humans , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
In a multicentre study, influenza A/H1N1/09v 222G/N variants were more frequently detected in patients admitted to the intensive-care unit for invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (10/23; 43.5%) than in patients hospitalized in other units (2/27; 7.4%) and community patients (0/81; 0.0%) (p <0.01). A significantly higher virus load (p 0.02) in the lower vs the upper respiratory tract was observed. Predominance of 222G/N variants in the lower respiratory tract (40% of total virus population) vs the upper respiratory tract (10%) was shown by clonal analysis of haemagglutinin sequences in paired nasal swab and bronchoalveolar lavage samples. The time from illness onset to sampling was significantly longer in patients with severe infection vs community patients (p <0.001). It was concluded that the 222G/N variants showed increased virulence; mutant variants were probably selected in individual patients; and the longer duration of illness might have favoured the emergence of adaptive mutations through multiple replication cycles.
Subject(s)
Hemagglutinin Glycoproteins, Influenza Virus/genetics , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/pathogenicity , Influenza, Human/physiopathology , Polymorphism, Genetic/genetics , Severity of Illness Index , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/virology , Child , Female , Humans , Infant , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/genetics , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/isolation & purification , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/virology , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Nasal Cavity/virology , Virulence , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the respiratory pattern selected by the Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) in ventilated patients with acute, chronic respiratory failure and normal lungs and in a physical lung model. DESIGN: We tested ASV both on patients and in a physical lung model, with a normal level of minute ventilation and with minute ventilation increased by 30%. In each patient, respiratory pattern, mechanics and blood gases were recorded. SETTING: General ICU of a University Hospital. RESULTS: In patients with normal lungs, mean values+/-SD were: tidal volume (Vt) 558.1+/-142.4 mL, respiratory rate (RR) 12.6+/-1.3b/min and inspiratory time/total time ratio (Ti/Ttot) 42.4+/-4.1%; in COPD, mean values+/-SD were: Vt 724+/-171 mL, RR 9.2+/-2.7b/min and Ti/Ttot 26.6+/-10.5%; in restrictive ones, mean values+/-SD were: Vt 550.2+/-77.0 mL, RR 15.8+/-2.6b/min, Ti/Ttot 47.5+/-2.5%. In the lung model, at a normal setting, mean values+/-SD were: Vt 523+/-18.5 mL, RR 14+/-0.0b/min, Ti/Ttot 44.0%, in COPD, mean values+/-SD were: Vt 678+/-0.0 mL, RR 9+/-0.0b/min, Ti/Ttot 20+/-0.7%, in restrictive one, mean values+/-SD were: Vt 513+/-12.8 mL, RR 15+/-0.0b/min, Ti/Ttot 48+/-1.5%. In model hyperventilation conditions in a normal setting a Vt of 582+/-16.6 mL, RR 16+/-0.0b/min, Ti/Ttot 48+/-0.0% were selected, in the obstructive setting Vt 883+/-0.0 mL, RR 9+/-0.0b/min, Ti/Ttot 20+/-0.0% and in a restrictive one Vt 545+/-8.4 mL, RR 18+/-0.0b/min, Ti/Ttot 50-0.0%. CONCLUSIONS: In normal patients ASV selected a ventilatory pattern close to the physiological one, in COPD almost a high expiratory time pattern and in restrictive ones a reduced tidal volume pattern. In the model the selection was similar. In the hyperventilation test, ASV chose a balanced increase in both Vt and RR.
