Organersatz auf der Intensivstation – extrakorporaler Lungenersatz

Abstract

Veno-veneous extracorporeal membraneoxygenation (ECMO) is a well established life-saving technology for patients with severe acute respiratory failure. A P/F ratio below 60 – 80 mmHg despite maximal treatment including prone positioning and muscle relaxation constitutes the major indication criterion. Further indications also include severe acute respiratory acidosis. The decision to start ECMO therapy is based on established indication criteria but also balanced against other clinical conditions including the main underlying disease, age, the number of organs with organ failure, and hemodynamic instability. Established scores may help to estimate the prognosis, but are not validated to guide the indication for ECMO treatment. Current evidence is generated from one randomized controlled trial without clearly defined control interventions and from registry data. For 2016 /17 the results of the French EOLIA trial with a well characterized control group are awaited.

• Literatur

• 1 Brodie D, Bacchetta M. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for ARDS in adults. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1905-1914
• 2 Muller T, Lubnow M, Philipp A et al. Extracorporeal pumpless interventional lung assist in clinical practice: determinants of efficacy. Eur Respir J 2009; 33: 551-558
• 3 Schmidt M, Tachon G, Devilliers C et al. Blood oxygenation and decarboxylation determinants during venovenous ECMO for respiratory failure in adults. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39: 838-846
• 4 Lehle K, Philipp A, Hiller KA et al. Efficiency of gas transfer in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: analysis of 317 cases with four different ECMO systems. Intensive Care Med 2014; 40: 1870-1877
• 5 Karagiannidis C, Kampe KA, Sipmann FS et al. Veno-venous extracorporeal CO₂ removal for the treatment of severe respiratory acidosis: pathophysiological and technical considerations. Crit Care 2014; 18: R124
• 6 Peek GJ, Mugford M, Tiruvoipati R et al. Efficacy and economic assessment of conventional ventilatory support versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe adult respiratory failure (CESAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374: 1351-1363
• 7 Broman LM, Holzgraefe B, Palmer K et al. The Stockholm experience: interhospital transports on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care 2015; 19: 278
• 8 Girou E, Schortgen F, Delclaux C et al. Association of noninvasive ventilation with nosocomial infections and survival in critically ill patients. JAMA 2000; 284: 2361-2367
• 9 Del SorboL, Pisani L, Filippini C et al. Extracorporeal Co2 removal in hypercapnic patients at risk of noninvasive ventilation failure: a matched cohort study with historical control. Crit Care Med 2015; 43: 120-127
• 10 Kluge S, Braune SA, Engel M et al. Avoiding invasive mechanical ventilation by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal in patients failing noninvasive ventilation. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38: 1632-1639
• 11 Karagiannidis C, Strassmann S, Philipp A et al. Veno-venous extracorporeal CO₂ removal improves pulmonary hypertension in acute exacerbation of severe COPD. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 1509-1510
• 12 Bein T, Weber-Carstens S, Goldmann A et al. Lower tidal volume strategy ( approximately 3 ml/kg) combined with extracorporeal CO₂ removal versus „conventional“ protective ventilation (6 ml/kg) in severe ARDS: the prospective randomized Xtravent-study. Intensive Care Med 2013; 39: 847-856