Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
ECMO in major burn patients: feasibility and considerations when multiple modes of mechanical ventilation fail
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
ECMO in major burn patients: feasibility and considerations when multiple modes of mechanical ventilation fail
Do you wish to request the book?
ECMO in major burn patients: feasibility and considerations when multiple modes of mechanical ventilation fail
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
ECMO in major burn patients: feasibility and considerations when multiple modes of mechanical ventilation fail
2017
Overview
Background
We report two cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome in burn patients who were successfully managed with good outcomes with extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) after failing multiple conventional modes of ventilation, and review the relevant literature.
Case presentation
The two patients were a 39-year-old male and 53-year-old male with modified Baux Scores of 79 and 78, respectively, with no known inhalation injury. After the initial modified Parkland-based fluid resuscitation and partial escharotomy, both patients developed worsening hypoxemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome.
The hypoxemia continued to worsen on multiple modes of ventilation including volume control, pressure regulated volume control, pressure control, airway pressure release ventilation and volumetric diffusive ventilation. In both cases, the PaO
2
≤ 50 mm Hg on a FiO
2
100% during the trial of mechanical ventilation. The deterioration was rapid (<12 h since onset of worsening oxygenation) in both cases.
A decision was made to trial the patients on ECMO. Veno-Venous ECMO (V-V ECMO) was successfully initiated following cannulation-under transesophgeal echo guidance—with the dual lumen Avalon® (Maquet, NJ, USA) cannula. ECMO support was maintained for 4 and 24 days, respectively. Both patients were successfully weaned off ECMO and were discharged to rehabilitation following their complex hospital course.
Conclusion
Early ECMO for isolated respiratory failure in the setting on maintained hemodynamics resulted in a positive outcome in our two burn patients suffered from acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Publisher
BioMed Central,Oxford University Press
