Long-Term Quality of Life After Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in ARDS Survivors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an increasingly prevalent treatment for acute respiratory failure (ARF). To evaluate the impact of ECMO support on long-term outcomes for critically ill adults with ARF. METHODS: We searched electronic databases 1948 through to November 30 2016; selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome, examining long-term morbidity specifically health-related quality of life (HRQL); 2 authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. ANALYSIS: Of the 633 citations, 1 randomized controlled trial and 5 observational studies met the selection criteria. Overall quality of observational studies was moderate to high (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 7.2/9; range, 6-8). In 3 studies (n = 245), greater decrements in HRQL were seen for survivors of ECMO when compared to survivors of conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) as measured by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores ([ECMO-CMV]: 5.40 [95% confidence interval, CI, 4.11 to 6.68]). As compared to CMV survivors, those who received ECMO experienced significantly less psychological morbidity (2 studies; n = 217 [ECMO-CMV]: mean weighted difference [MWD], -1.31 [95% CI, -1.98 to -0.64] for depression and MWD, -1.60 [95% CI, -1.80 to -1.39] for anxiety). CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are required to confirm findings and determine prognostic factors associated with more favorable outcomes in survivors of ECMO.

Changes in Radial Artery Pulse Pressure During a Fluid Challenge Cannot Assess Fluid Responsiveness in Patients With Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Arterial blood pressure is the most common variable used to assess the response to a fluid challenge in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the change in the radial artery pulse pressure (rPP) to detect the change in cardiac output after a fluid challenge in patients with septic shock. METHODS: Prospective observational study including 35 patients with septic shock in which rPP and cardiac output were measured before and after a fluid challenge with 400 mL of crystalloid solution. Cardiac output was measured with intermittent thermodilution technique using a pulmonary artery catheter. Patients were divided between responders (increase >15% of cardiac output after fluid challenge) and nonresponders. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Pearson correlation coefficient and paired Student t test were used in statistical analysis. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of the patients were fluid responders. The change in rPP could not neither discriminate between responders and nonresponders (AUROC = 0.52; [95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.72] P = .8) nor correlate (r = .21, P = .1) with the change in cardiac output after the fluid challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The change in rPP neither discriminated between fluid responders and nonresponders nor correlated with the change in cardiac output after a fluid challenge. The change in rPP cannot serve as a surrogate of the change in cardiac output to assess the response to a fluid challenge in patients with septic shock.