Key result
ECMO management for respiratory failure lacks robust data and relies heavily on consensus guidelines.
Why the study?
Despite widespread use of ECMO, there is a paucity of data on optimal management strategies for ECMO patients with cardiac and/or respiratory failure.
This review provides an overview of current techniques and management strategies for patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure.
ECMO respiratory failure management rests on weak evidence; leaves open optimal protocols for prospective trials.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an important rescue therapy for patients with cardiac and/or respiratory failure, with a growing body of literature supporting its use. Despite widespread use of ECMO, there remains a paucity of data on optimal management strategies for ECMO patients. Management of ECMO patients involves an understanding of the complex interaction between this technology and the critically ill patients being supported. ECMO providers typically rely on a combination of consensus guidelines and institutional experience to make management decisions. Substantial controversy continues to exist regarding many elements of ECMO management, including seemingly straightforward decisions such as the initial implementation of this technology. In addition, there are multiple providers involved in the management of ECMO patients who must be co-ordinated for this supportive therapy to be most effective. This manuscript provides an overview of current techniques for treating respiratory ECMO patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rehder et al. (2012) conducted a review in Respiratory failure. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was evaluated. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) management for respiratory failure currently relies on consensus guidelines and institutional experience due to a paucity of data on optimal strategies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: