Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has an established place in the treatment of acute cardiorespiratory failure in children based on over 25 years of accumulated clinical experience. The Extracorporeal Life Support Registry (ELSO) database now contains outcome data on over 20,000 patients with survival rates varying between more than 80% in neonates to 40–50% in older children and adults. In 1996 a randomized trial in the United Kingdom showed better outcomes in neonates with severe respiratory failure treated with ECMO compared to conventional ventilation [1]. There has been no equivalent study in older children, and although ECMO has been used for the treatment of adults with ARDS since the 1970s, two randomized trials have failed to show superiority to standard treatment [2, 3]. Despite this there has been encouraging single-centre experience of the successful use of ECMO as rescue therapy in adults with ARDS and following lung transplantation [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. This, combined with criticisms of study design in the original trials, has prompted the launching of a further randomized controlled trial on the use of ECMO in adults with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) in the United Kingdom. Despite the lack of high-level efficacy data in children there have been increasing numbers placed on ECMO at a time when neonatal ECMO numbers are falling, due to changes in ventilation strategy which now includes pressure limitation and the use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and inhaled nitric oxide. Advances in oxygenator technology have extended the life of ECMO circuits and has led to a reduction in complications associated with bleeding. This has emboldened people to push the boundaries of ECMO into areas such as AHRF associated with hematological malignancy and bone marrow transplantation, which were previously thought to be contraindications [9, 10].
The case report by Macintosh et al. [11] in the Intensive Care Medicine merits publication because it takes ECMO into uncharted waters where many would have not considered it an option, i.e., a patient with undiagnosed lung disease and prolonged (20 day) period of mechanical ventilation with pulmonary barotrauma who was also immunosuppressed. Most or all of these factors would have been considered contraindications in most ECMO centres. While there might be some discussion about some of therapeutic choices prior to cannulation, we should applaud the authors’ perseverance and tenacity. What could be a better outcome than a live and intact child after an acute life-threatening illness. At the same time we should acknowledge that successful case reports are the ones that get published, not the heroic failures, and people should think carefully about the potential exit strategy before instituting ECMO. The availability of high-tech life support sometimes results in the ethical dilemma of withdrawal of therapy several weeks down the road when there is no lung recovery in an otherwise intact child. The best outcomes in ECMO support will always be seen in children with single-system pulmonary disease with a known cause rather than in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and multiple organ dysfunction. In the meantime we should await with interest the results of the current randomized trial in the United Kingdom to see whether the use of ECMO in adults with AHRF takes on a new lease of life.
References
UK Collaborative ECMO Trail Group (1996) UK collaborative randomised trial of neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Lancet 348:75–82
Morris AH, Wallace CJ, Menlove RL, Clemmer TP, Orme JF, Weaver LK, Dean NC, Thomas F, East TD, Pace NL, et al (1994) Randomized clinical trial of pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation and extracorporeal CO2 removal for adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 149:295–305
Zapol WM, Snider MT, Hill JD, Fallat RJ, Bartlett RH, Edmunds LH, Morris AH, Peirce EC 2nd, Thomas AN, Proctor HJ, Drinker PA, Pratt PC, Bagniewski A, Miller RG Jr (1979) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe acute respiratory failure. A randomized prospective study. JAMA 242:2193–2196
Bartlett RH, Roloff DW, Custer JR, Younger JG, Hirschl RB (2000) Extracorporeal life support: the University of Michigan experience. JAMA 283:904–908
Kolla S, Awad SS, Rich PB, Schreiner RJ, Hirschl RB, Bartlett RH (1997) Extracorporeal life support for 100 adult patients with severe respiratory failure. Ann Surg 226:544–564
Dahlberg PS, Prekker ME, Herrington CS, Hertz MI, Park SJ (2004) Medium-term results of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute lung injury after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 23:979–984
Meyers BF, Sundt TM 3rd, Henry S, Trulock EP, Guthrie T, Cooper JD, Patterson GA (2000) Selective use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is warranted after lung transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 120:20–26
Oto T, Rosenfeldt F, Rowland M, Pick A, Rabinov M, Preovolos A, Snell G, Williams T, Esmore D (2004) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after lung transplantation: evolving technique improves outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 78:1230–1235
Leahey AM, Bunin NJ, Schears GJ, Smith CA, Flake AW, Sullivan KE (1998) Successful use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during BMT for SCID. Bone Marrow Transplant 21:839–840
Linden V, Karlen J, Olsson M, Palmer K, Ehren H, Henter JI, Kalin M (1999) Successful extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in four children with malignant disease and severe Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia. Med Pediatr Oncol 32:25–31
Macintosh ID, ButtW, RobertsonCF, Best D, Shekerdemian LS (2005) Extending the limits of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: lung rest for a child with non-specific interstitial pneumonia. Intensive Care Med (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2620-6)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bohn, D. Pushing the boundaries for the use of ECMO in acute hypoxic respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med 31, 896–897 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2667-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2667-4