Abstract
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the level of evidence for the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in hypoxemic respiratory failure resulting from burn and smoke inhalation injury. We searched any article published before March 01, 2012. Available studies published in any language were included. Five authors rated each article and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the recommendation of the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM). Our search yielded 66 total citations but only 29 met the inclusion criteria of burn and/or smoke inhalation injury. There are no available systematic reviews/meta-analyses published that met our inclusion criteria. Only a small number of clinical trials, all with a limited number of patients, were available. The overall data suggests that there is no improvement in survival for burn patients suffering acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, with the use of ECMO. ECMO run times of less than 200h correlate with higher survival compared to 200h or more. Scald burns show a tendency of higher survival than flame burns.In conclusion, the presently available literature is based on insufficient patient numbers; the data obtained and level of evidence generated are limited. The role of ECMO in burn and smoke inhalation injury is therefore unclear. However, ECMO technology and expertise have improved over the last decades. Further research on ECMO in burn and smoke inhalation injury is warranted.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.