Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Validation of Prognostic Scores in Extracorporeal Life Support: A Multi-Centric Retrospective Study.
Fisser, Christoph; Rincon-Gutierrez, Luis Alberto; Enger, Tone Bull; Taccone, Fabio Silvio; Broman, Lars Mikael; Belliato, Mirko; Nobile, Leda; Pappalardo, Federico; Malfertheiner, Maximilian V.
Afiliação
  • Fisser C; Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
  • Rincon-Gutierrez LA; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik, 808, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium.
  • Enger TB; Clinic of Cardiology, St. Olavs University Hospital, 7030 Trondheim, Norway.
  • Taccone FS; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik, 808, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium.
  • Broman LM; ECMO Centre Karolinska, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 64 Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Belliato M; Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.
  • Nobile L; UOS Advanced Respiratory Intensive Care Unit, UOC Anestesia e Rianimazione 1, Fondazione I.R.C.C.S. Policlinico San Matteo, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
  • Pappalardo F; Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik, 808, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium.
  • Malfertheiner MV; San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita Salute University, 20132 Milan, Italy.
Membranes (Basel) ; 11(2)2021 Jan 24.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33498825
Multiple prognostic scores have been developed for both veno-arterial (VA) and veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), mostly in single-center cohorts. The aim of this study was to compare and validate different prediction scores in a large multicenter ECMO-population. METHODS: Data from five ECMO centers included 300 patients on VA and 329 on VV ECMO support (March 2008 to November 2016). Different prognostic scores were compared between survivors and non-survivors: APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II in all patients; SAVE, modified SAVE and MELD-XI in VA ECMO; RESP, PRESET, ROCH and PRESERVE in VV ECMO. Model performance was compared using receiver-operating-curve analysis and assessment of model calibration. Survival was assessed at intensive care unit discharge. RESULTS: The main indication for VA ECMO was cardiogenic shock; overall survival was 51%. ICU survivors had higher Glasgow Coma Scale scores and pH, required cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) less frequently, had lower lactate levels and shorter ventilation time pre-ECMO at baseline. The best discrimination between survivors and non-survivors was observed with the SAPS II score (area under the curve [AUC] of 0.73 (95% CI 0.67-0.78)). The main indication for VV ECMO was pneumonia; overall survival was 60%. Lower PaCO2, higher pH, lower lactate and lesser need for CPR were observed among survivors. The best discrimination between survivors and non-survivors was observed with the PRESET score (AUC 0.66 (95% CI 0.60-0.72)). CONCLUSION: The prognostic performance of most scores was moderate in ECMO patients. The use of such scores to decide about ECMO implementation in potential candidates should be discouraged.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Membranes (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha País de publicação: Suíça

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Idioma: En Revista: Membranes (Basel) Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Alemanha País de publicação: Suíça