Evaluation of Combined Extracorporeal Life Support and Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy on Hemodynamic Performance and Gaseous Microemboli Handling Ability in a Simulated Neonatal ECLS System

Centrifugal or Roller Blood Pumps for Neonatal Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Database Comparison of Mortality and Morbidity

OBJECTIVES

To investigate outcomes associated with conventional roller or centrifugal pumps during neonatal venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Our primary hypothesis is that in comparison with conventional roller-pump support, centrifugal pump use is associated with greater odds of survival. Our secondary hypothesis is that centrifugal pump use is associated with lesser odds of complications.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort identified using the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry 2016 to 2020 dataset.

SETTING

All ECMO centers reporting to the ELSO registry.

PATIENTS

All neonates (≤ 28 d) supported with venovenous ECMO and cannulated via right internal jugular vein using dual-lumen venovenous cannulas and polymethyl pentene membrane oxygenators.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 612 neonates (centrifugal, n = 340; conventional roller, n = 272) were included in the analysis. Using a multivariable logistic regression model, centrifugal pump use-as opposed to roller pump use-was associated with lesser odds of survival (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.84; p < 0.008). Thrombosis and clots in the circuit components were also associated with lesser odds of survival (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16-0.60; p < 0.001). We failed to show that hemolysis was an independent variable for survival (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.31-1.19; p = 0.14). The primary diagnosis of neonatal aspiration/meconium aspiration is associated with more than seven-fold greater odds of survival (OR, 7.57; 95% CI, 4.02-15.74; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypotheses, conventional roller pump use was associated with greater odds of survival. While thrombosis and clots in circuit components were independent variables for lesser odds of survival, further research is needed better to understand the use of centrifugal pumps in neonatal practice.

A Minimally Invasive and Highly Effective Extracorporeal CO2 Removal Device Combined With a Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy

OBJECTIVES

Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal is used to treat patients suffering from acute respiratory failure. However, the procedure is hampered by the high blood flow required to achieve a significant CO2 clearance. We aimed to develop an ultralow blood flow device to effectively remove CO2 combined with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

DESIGN

Preclinical, proof-of-concept study.

SETTING

An extracorporeal circuit where 200 mL/min of blood flowed through a hemofilter connected to a closed-loop dialysate circuit. An ion-exchange resin acidified the dialysate upstream, a membrane lung to increase Pco2 and promote CO2 removal.

PATIENTS

Six, 38.7 ± 2.0-kg female pigs.

INTERVENTIONS

Different levels of acidification were tested (from 0 to 5 mEq/min). Two l/hr of postdilution CRRT were performed continuously. The respiratory rate was modified at each step to maintain arterial Pco2 at 50 mm Hg.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Increasing acidification enhanced CO2 removal efficiency of the membrane lung from 30 ± 5 (0 mEq/min) up to 145 ± 8 mL/min (5 mEq/min), with a 483% increase, representing the 73% ± 7% of the total body CO2 production. Minute ventilation decreased accordingly from 6.5 ± 0.7 to 1.7 ± 0.5 L/min. No major side effects occurred, except for transient tachycardia episodes. As expected from the alveolar gas equation, the natural lung Pao2 dropped at increasing acidification steps, given the high dissociation between the oxygenation and CO2 removal capability of the device, thus Pao2 decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

This new extracorporeal ion-exchange resin-based multiple-organ support device proved extremely high efficiency in CO2 removal and continuous renal support in a preclinical setting. Further studies are required before clinical implementation.

Artificial Organs 2018: A Year in Review

In this Editor's Review, articles published in 2018 are organized by category and summarized. We provide a brief reflection of the research and progress in artificial organs intended to advance and better human life while providing insight for continued application of these technologies and methods. Artificial Organs continues in the original mission of its founders "to foster communications in the field of artificial organs on an international level." Artificial Organs continues to publish developments and clinical applications of artificial organ technologies in this broad and expanding field of organ Replacement, Recovery, and Regeneration from all over the world. Peer-reviewed special issues this year included contributions from the 13th International Conference on Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support Systems and Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Perfusion edited by Dr. Akif Undar, and the 25th Congress of the International Society for Mechanical Circulatory Support edited by Dr. Marvin Slepian. Additionally, many editorials highlighted the worldwide survival differences in hemodialysis and perspectives on mechanical circulatory support and stem cell therapies for cardiac support. We take this time also to express our gratitude to our authors for offering their work to this journal. We offer our very special thanks to our reviewers who give so generously of time and expertise to review, critique, and especially provide meaningful suggestions to the author's work whether eventually accepted or rejected. Without these excellent and dedicated reviewers the quality expected from such a journal could not be possible. We also express our special thanks to our Publisher, John Wiley & Sons for their expert attention and support in the production and marketing of Artificial Organs. We look forward to reporting further advances in the coming years.

In Vitro Comparison of Two Neonatal ECMO Circuits Using a Roller or Centrifugal Pump With Three Different In-Line Hemoconcentrators for Maintaining Hemodynamic Energy Delivery to the Patient

The objective of this study was to compare three different hemoconcentrators (Hemocor HPH 400, Mini, and Junior) with two different neonatal ECMO circuits using a roller or a centrifugal pump at different pseudo-patient pressures and flow rates in terms of hemodynamic properties. This evidence-based research is necessary to optimize the ECMO circuitry for neonates. The circuits used a 300-mL soft-shell reservoir as a pseudo-patient approximating the blood volume of a 3 kg neonate, two blood pumps, and a Quadrox-iD Pediatric oxygenator with three different in-line hemoconcentrators (Hemocor HPH 400, Mini, and Junior). One circuit used a Maquet H20 roller pump and another circuit used a Maquet RotaFlow centrifugal pump. The circuit was primed with lactated Ringer's solution followed by heparinized packed red blood cells with a hematocrit of 40%. The pseudo-patient's pressure was manually maintained at 40, 60, or 80 mm Hg and the flow rate was maintained at 200, 400, or 600 mL/min with a circuit temperature of 36°C. Pressure and flow data was recorded using a custom-made data acquisition device. Mean pressures, diverted blood flow, pressure drops, and total hemodynamic energy (THE) were calculated for each experimental condition. The roller pump and centrifugal pump performed similarly for all hemodynamic properties with all experimental conditions. The Hemocor HPH Junior hemoconcentrator added the highest resistance to the circuit. The Hemocor HPH Junior provided the highest circuit pressures, lowest diverted blood flow, highest pressure drop across the circuit, and highest THE generated by the pump. The Hemocor HPH 400 added the least resistance to the circuit, providing the lowest circuit pressures, more diverted flow, lowest pressure drop, and the lowest THE generated by the pump. However, the THE delivered to the patient was the same for the three hemoconcentrators. While the three hemoconcentrators performed differently in terms of hemodynamic properties throughout the circuit, the THE transmitted to the patient was similar for all three hemoconcentrators due to the consistent pseudo-patient's pressure that was manually maintained for each trial. While the THE delivered to the patient indicates similar perfusion for these patients with any of the three hemoconcentrators, the differences in added resistance to the circuit may impact the decision of which hemoconcentrator is used. There was no clinically significant difference between the two circuits with the roller versus centrifugal pump in terms of hemodynamic properties in this study. Further in vivo research is warranted to confirm our findings.