4.5 Article

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for refractory cardiac arrest after drowning: An 11-year experience

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 126-131

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.023

关键词

Hypothermia; Drowning; Cardiac arrest; Extracorporeal rewarming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Neuroprotective effects of hypothermia may explain surprisingly high survival rates reported after drowning in cold water despite prolonged submersion. We described a cohort of refractory hypothermic cardiac arrests (CA) due to drowning treated by extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and aimed to identify criteria associated with 24-h survival. Methods: Eleven-year period (2002-2012) retrospective study in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary hospital (European Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris, France). All consecutive hypothermic patients admitted for refractory CA after drowning in the Seine River were included. Patients with core temperature below 30 degrees C and submersion duration of less than 1 h were potentially eligible for ECLS resuscitation. Results: Forty-three patients were admitted directly to the ICU during the study period. ECLS was initiated in 20 patients (47%). Among these 20 patients, only four (9%) survived more than 24 h. A first hospital core temperature <= 26 degrees C and a potassium serum level between 4.2 and 6 mM at hospital admission have a sensitivity of 100% [95% CI: 28-100%] and a specificity of 100% [95% CI: 71-100%] to discriminate patients who survived more than 24 h. Overall survival at ICU discharge and at 6-months was 5% [95% CI: 1-16%] (two patients). Conclusions: Despite patient hypothermia and aggressive resuscitation with ECLS, the observed survival rate is low in the present cohort. Like existing algorithms for ECLS management in avalanche victims, we recommend to use first core temperature and potassium serum level to indicate ECLS for refractory CA due to drowning. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据