• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Feasibility of inter-hospital transportation using extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support of patients affected by severe swine-flu(H1N1)-

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
To describe the organization of an ECMO-centre from triage by telephone to the phase of inter-hospital transportation with ECMO of patients affected by H1N1-induced ARDS, describing techniques and equipment used.

Methods: From September 2009 to January 2010, 18 patients with H1N1-induced ARDS were referred to our ECMO-centre from other hospitals. Six patients had contraindications to treatment with ECMO and remained in the local hospital.

Twelve patients were transported to our centre and were included in this study. Four patients were transported on ECMO (Group A) and eight on conventional ventilation (Group B).

The groups were compared on the basis of adverse events during transport, clinical characteristics and outcome.

Results: The PaO2/FiO2 ratio was lower in the patients of Group A (46.8 vs 89.7 [median]) despite the PEEP values being higher (15.0 vs 8.5 [median]). The Murray score was higher in Group A (3.50 vs 2.75 [median]).

During the transfer there were no significant complications noted in Group A, whereas two patients in Group B were reported with hypoxia (SpO2<90%). One patient in Group A died.

All the other patients of the two groups have been discharged from hospital.

Conclusions: The creation of an ECMO team, with various experts in the treatment of ARDS, assured a safe transfer of patients with severe hypoxia, over long distances, when in other cases they wouldn't have been be transportable.

Author: Marco CiapettiGiovanni CianchiGiovanni ZagliCesare GrecoAndrea PasquiniRosario SpinaStefano BatacchiManuela BonizzoliMassimo BonacchiChiara LazzeriPasquale BernardoAdriano Peris
Credits/Source: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and



Published on: 2011-05-27

http://7thspace.com/headlines/38434...ted_by_severe_swine_fluh1n1_related_ards.html
 
Back
Top Bottom