Browsing by Author "Sandhu, Hitesh S."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Tracheostomy and Long-Term Mechanical Ventilation in Children after Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
    (Wiley, 2021-09) Mallory, Palen P.; Barbaro, Ryan P.; Bembea, Melania M.; Bridges, Brian C.; Chima, Ranjit S.; Kilbaugh, Todd J.; Potera, Renee M.; Rosner, Elizabeth A.; Sandhu, Hitesh S.; Slaven, James E.; Tarquinio, Keiko M.; Cheifetz, Ira M.; Friedman, Matthew L.; Biostatistics, School of Public Health
    Objective Our objective is to characterize the incidence of tracheostomy placement and of new requirement for long-term mechanical ventilation after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) among children with acute respiratory failure. We examine whether an association exists between demographics, pre-ECMO and ECMO clinical factors, and the placement of a tracheostomy or need for long-term mechanical ventilation. Methods A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted at 10 quaternary care pediatric academic centers, including children supported with veno-venous (V-V) ECMO from 2011 to 2016. Results Among 202 patients, 136 (67%) survived to ICU discharge. All tracheostomies were placed after ECMO decannulation, in 22 patients, with 19 of those surviving to ICU discharge (14% of survivors). Twelve patients (9% of survivors) were discharged on long-term mechanical ventilation. Tracheostomy placement and discharge on home ventilation were not associated with pre-ECMO severity of illness or pre-existing chronic illness. Patients who received a tracheostomy were older and weighed more than patients who did not receive a tracheostomy, although this association did not exist among patients discharged on home ventilation. ECMO duration was longer in those who received a tracheostomy compared to those who did not, as well as for those discharged on home ventilation, compared to those who were not. Conclusion The 14% rate for tracheostomy placement and 9% rate for discharge on long-term mechanical ventilation after V-V ECMO are important patient centered findings. This work informs anticipatory guidance provided to families of patients requiring prolonged respiratory ECMO support, and lays the foundation for future research. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Children With Cancer or Hematopoietic Cell Transplant: A Ten Center Cohort
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2021) Bridges, Brian C.; Kilbaugh, Todd J.; Barbaro, Ryan P.; Bembea, Melania M.; Chima, Ranjit S.; Potera, Renee M.; Rosner, Elizabeth A.; Sandhu, Hitesh S.; Slaven, James E.; Tarquinio, Keiko M.; Cheifetz, Ira M.; Rowan, Courtney M.; Friedman, Matthew L.; Biostatistics, School of Public Health
    We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study of children aged 14 days to 18 years in the United States from 2011 to 2016 with cancer or hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) who were supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). We compared the outcomes of children with oncological diagnoses or HCT supported with V-V ECMO to other children who have received V-V ECMO support. In this cohort of 204 patients supported with V-V ECMO, 30 (15%) had a diagnosis of cancer or a history of HCT. There were 21 patients who had oncological diagnoses without HCT and 9 children were post-HCT. The oncology/HCT group had a higher overall ICU mortality (67% vs. 28%, p<0.001), mortality on ECMO (43% vs 21%, p<0.01), and ICU mortality among ECMO survivors (35% vs 8%, p<0.01). The oncology/HCT group had a higher rate of conversion to veno-arterial (V-A) ECMO (23% vs. 9%, p=0.02) (RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1–5.6). Children with cancer or HCT were older (6.6 years vs 2.9 years, p=0.02) and had higher creatinine levels (0.65 mg/dL vs 0.4 mg/dL, p=0.04) but were similar to the rest of the cohort for other pre-ECMO variables. For post-HCT patients, survival was significantly worse for those whose indication for HCT was cancer or immunodeficiency (0/6) as compared to other nonmalignant indications (3/3) (p=0.01).