Search

We aimed to critically evaluate the effectiveness of a designated ECMO team in our ECMO selection process and patient outcomes in the first 3 years of our low-volume pediatric ECMO program. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received an ECMO consultation between the start of our program in March 2015 and May 2018. We gathered clinical and demographic information on patients who did and did not receive ECMO, and described our selection process. We reflected on the processes used to initiate our program and our outcomes in the first 3 years. Sixty-nine patients received consultations, and of those, 50 patients were potential candidates. 19 (38%) of the candidates were ultimately placed on ECMO. There were statistically significant differences in oxygen saturation, paO2, oxygenation index, A-aDO2, lactate, and pH between the patients who went on ECMO and who did not. We improved our outcomes from 0% survival to discharge in 2015, to 60% in 2018, with an average of 63% survival to discharge over the first 3 years of our program. In a low-volume pediatric ECMO center, having a designated team to assist in the patient selection process and management can help provide safe and efficient care to these patients, and improve patient outcomes. Having a strict management protocol and simulation sessions involving all members of the medical team yields comfort for the providers and optimal care for patients. This study describes our novel structure, processes, and outcomes, which we hope will be helpful to others seeking to develop a new pediatric ECMO program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aims to determine the oxygenator impact on alterations of peramivir (PRV) in a contemporary neonatal/pediatric (1/4-inch) and adolescent/adult (3/8-inch) extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuit including the Quadrox-i® oxygenator. Methods: 1/4-inch and 3/8-inch, simulated closed-loop ECMO circuits were prepared with a Quadrox-i pediatric and Quadrox-i adult oxygenator and blood primed. Additionally, 1/4-inch and 3/8-inch circuits were also prepared without an oxygenator in series. A one-time dose of PRV was administered into the circuits and serial pre- and post-oxygenator concentrations were obtained at 5-min and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 8-, 12-, and 24-h time points. PRV was also maintained in a glass vial, and samples were taken from the vial at the same time periods for control purposes to assess for spontaneous drug degradation. Results: For the 1/4-in. circuit with an oxygenator, there was < 15% PRV loss, and for the 1/4-in. circuit without an oxygenator, there was < 3% PRV loss during the study period. For the 3/8-in. circuits with an oxygenator, there was < 15% PRV loss, and for the 3/8-in. circuits without an oxygenator, there was < 3% PRV loss during the study period. Conclusion: There was no significant PRV loss over the 24-h study period in either the 1/4-in. or 3/8-in circuit, regardless of the presence of the oxygenator. The concentrations obtained pre- and post-oxygenator appeared to approximate each other, suggesting there may be no drug loss via the oxygenator. This preliminary data suggests PRV dosing may not need to be adjusted for concern of drug loss via the oxygenator. Additional single and multiple dose studies are needed to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To determine the oxygenator impact on alterations of meropenem (MEM)/vaborbactam (VBR) in a contemporary neonatal/pediatric (1/4-inch) and adolescent/adult (3/8-inch) extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuit including the Quadrox-i® oxygenator. Methods: 1/4-inch and 3/8-inch, simulated closed-loop ECMO circuits were prepared with a Quadrox-i pediatric and Quadrox-i adult oxygenator and blood primed. Additionally, 1/4-inch and 3/8-inch circuits were also prepared without an oxygenator in series. A one-time dose of MEM/VBR was administered into the circuits and serial pre- and post-oxygenator concentrations were obtained at 5 minutes, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 24-hour time points. MEM/VBR was also maintained in a glass vial and samples were taken from the vial at the same time periods for control purposes to assess for spontaneous drug degradation. Results: For the 1/4-inch circuit, there was an approximate mean 55% MEM loss with the oxygenator in series and a mean 33%–40% MEM loss without an oxygenator in series at 24 hours. For the 3/8-inch circuit, there was an approximate mean 70% MEM loss with the oxygenator in series and a mean 30%–38% MEM loss without an oxygenator in series at 24 hours. For both the 1/4-inch circuit and 3/8-inch circuits with and without an oxygenator, there was <10% VBR loss for the duration of the experiment. Conclusions: This ex-vivo investigation demonstrated substantial MEM loss within an ECMO circuit with an oxygenator in series with both sizes of the Quadrox-i oxygenator at 24 hours and no significant VBR loss. Further evaluations with multiple dose in-vitro and in-vivo investigations are needed before specific MEM/VBR dosing recommendations can be made for clinical application with ECMO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]