PURPOSE: Assess the feasibility of interfacility transfer via a mobile intensive care unit (MOBI) after a double lumen catheter cannulation at a referring facility for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). METHODS: This single center retrospective data analysis utilized our institutional data from January 2015-September 2019. We divided patients into 2 groups: Group A had a double lumen cannulation for in-hospital VV-ECMO; Group B had the same procedure for interfacility transfer via an MOBI. Cannulation was performed with fluoroscopic guidance at the referring facility by either one of its surgeons or the MOBI team. The MOBI consisted of an ECMO physician (either a surgeon or an intensivist), a respiratory therapist, an ECMO nurse, and a transport nurse. The 2 groups were compared in terms of pre support, complications during the ECMO support, and survival. RESULTS: There were no complications related to cannulation at the referring facility nor transfer. Group A had 33 patients (average age was 45.1 ± 18.0). Group B had 20 patients (average age was 48.4 ± 13.5). Pre ECMO pH, PCO2, PO2, and SaO2 were 7.2 ± 0.2, 7.3 ± 0.2 (p=0.08), 65.0 ± 21.6mmHg, 59.3 ± 24.2mmHg (p=0.27), 69.8 ± 26.3mmHg, 66.6 ± 45.0mmHg (p=0.18), 85.7 ± 9.7%, 82.5 ± 14.4% (p=0.61) in Group A and B, respectively. During ECMO support, Group A had 18 complications; Group B had 13 (p=0.57), including circuit component clots [5 and 4 (p=0.72)], circuit exchange [3 and 2 (p=1.00)], creatinine 1.5 - 3.0 [5 and 1 (p=0.39)], creatinine >3.0 [2 and 3 (p=0.35)], and renal replacement therapy [6 and 4 (p=1.00)]. Respectively, 69.7% and 50.0% of patients came off ECMO support, and 45.4% and 50.0% of patients survived to discharge (p=0.18). CONCLUSION: Double lumen catheter cannulation at the referring facility with MOBI demonstrated equivalent results to in-house cannulation.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine