Title |
Improving Long-Term Outcomes After Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: From Observational Follow-Up Programs Toward Risk Stratification
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Pediatrics, June 2018
|
DOI | 10.3389/fped.2018.00177 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Hanneke IJsselstijn, Maayke Hunfeld, Raisa M. Schiller, Robert J. Houmes, Aparna Hoskote, Dick Tibboel, Arno F. J. van Heijst |
Abstract |
Since the introduction of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), more neonates and children with cardiorespiratory failure survive. Interest has therefore shifted from reduction of mortality toward evaluation of long-term outcomes and prevention of morbidity. This review addresses the changes in ECMO population and the ECMO-treatment that may affect long-term outcomes, the diagnostic modalities to evaluate neurological morbidities and their contributions to prognostication of long-term outcomes. Most follow-up data have only become available from observational follow-up programs in neonatal ECMO-survivors. The main topics are discussed in this review. Recommendations for long-term follow up depend on the presence of neurological comorbidity, the nature and extent of the underlying disease, and the indication for ECMO. Follow up should preferably be offered as standard of care, and in an interdisciplinary, structured and standardized way. This permits evaluation of outcome data and effect of interventions. We propose a standardized approach and recommend that multiple domains should be evaluated during long-term follow up of neonates and children who needed extracorporeal life support. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 15% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 15% |
Switzerland | 2 | 8% |
Burkina Faso | 1 | 4% |
Australia | 1 | 4% |
Uruguay | 1 | 4% |
Canada | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 12 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 58% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 19% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 15% |
Scientists | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 17% |
Student > Master | 8 | 17% |
Other | 7 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
Researcher | 4 | 9% |
Other | 7 | 15% |
Unknown | 8 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 38% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 19% |
Engineering | 2 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 9% |
Unknown | 11 | 23% |