loading page

Importance of Pulse Pressure after Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
  • +2
  • Seok In Lee,
  • Yong Su Lim,
  • Chul Hyun Park,
  • Woo Sung Choi,
  • Chang Hyu Choi
Seok In Lee
Gachon University Gil Medical Center
Author Profile
Yong Su Lim
Gachon University Gil Medical Center
Author Profile
Chul Hyun Park
Gachon University Gil Medical Center
Author Profile
Woo Sung Choi
Gachon University Gil Medical Center
Author Profile
Chang Hyu Choi
Gachon University Gil Medical Center
Author Profile

Abstract

Background: Recent reports have revealed better clinical outcomes for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) than conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
In this retrospective study, we attempted to identify predictors associated with successful weaning off extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support after ECPR.
Methods: The demographic and clinical data of 30 ECPR patients aged over 18 years treated between August 2016 and January 2019 were analyzed. All clinical data were retrospectively collected. The primary endpoint was successful weaning from ECMO support after ECPR. Patients were divided into two groups based on successful or unsuccessful weaning off ECMO support (Weaned (n=14) vs. Failed (n=16)).
Results: Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that age, CPR duration, ECMO complications, and loss of pulse pressure significantly predicted the results of weaning off ECMO support. However, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only CPR duration and loss of pulse pressure independently predicted unsuccessful weaning from ECMO support.
Conclusion: We conclude that long CPR duration and loss of pulse pressure after ECPR predict unsuccessful weaning from ECMO. However, unlike CPR duration, loss of pulse pressure during post-ECPR was related to subsequent management. In patients with reduced pulse pressure after ECPR, careful management is warranted because this reduction is closely associated with unsuccessful weaning off ECMO support after ECPR.

Peer review status:ACCEPTED

16 May 2020Submitted to Journal of Cardiac Surgery
19 May 2020Submission Checks Completed
19 May 2020Assigned to Editor
24 May 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
30 May 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
08 Jun 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Major
26 Jun 20201st Revision Received
27 Jun 2020Submission Checks Completed
27 Jun 2020Assigned to Editor
07 Jul 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
07 Jul 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
01 Aug 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Major
13 Aug 20202nd Revision Received
14 Aug 2020Assigned to Editor
14 Aug 2020Submission Checks Completed
29 Oct 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
08 Nov 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
13 Nov 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Major
01 Dec 20203rd Revision Received
05 Dec 2020Assigned to Editor
05 Dec 2020Submission Checks Completed
30 Dec 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
04 Jan 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 Jan 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Major
01 Feb 20214th Revision Received
01 Feb 2021Submission Checks Completed
01 Feb 2021Assigned to Editor
25 Feb 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
23 Mar 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
03 Apr 2021Editorial Decision: Accept