ライフサイエンスコーパス: ECMO

1 ECMO allows ultra- protective ventilation, which combine

2 ECMO following liver transplantation should be considere

3 ECMO has a role in severe, refractory ARDS associated wi

4 ECMO has been described as a treatment modality for acut

5 ECMO is a lifesaving option for patients with interstiti

6 ECMO is not able to reverse the poor prognosis in patien

7 ECMO is particularly effective if the cause of cardiopul

8 ECMO patients had a high hazard for death in the first 6

9 ECMO patients had inferior survival at 12 months (66.1%)

10 ECMO patients had similar outcomes to non-ECMO patients

11 ECMO use was 11x higher in 2014 as compared with 2000 (o

12 ECMO utilization increased from 13 patients in 8 hospita

13 ECMO was a predictor of post-transplant mortality in the

14 ECMO was used in 0.5% and 0.3% AMI admissions complicate

15 ECMO was used more commonly in admissions that were youn

16 ECMO was used on 514 consecutive patients under age 19 y

17 ECMO-supported patients before dMCS have lower survival

18 s, and management protocols for the COVID-19 ECMO program.

19 shock who received VA-ECMO at five academic ECMO centres, with 130 controls (not receiving ECMO) obt

20 al ECMO mortality rates varied widely across ECMO centers: the interquartile range was 18-50% for neo

21 In ~9 million AMI admissions, ECMO was used in 2962 (<0.01%) and implanted a median of

22 ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mortality in those with a final disposition of

23 -to-event analysis assessed at 90 days after ECMO initiation.

24 ase in Pa(CO(2)) in the first 24 hours after ECMO initiation is independently associated with an incr

25 Extreme mortality after ECMO in elderly patients and patients requiring cardiopu

26 The approach of early repair after ECMO cannulation is associated with improved survival co

27 erminants of early and 1-year survival after ECMO in adult patients, we conducted a retrospective coh

28 Compared to the After ECMO group, patients in the On ECMO group demonstrated a

29 Aim 1-Compare On versus After ECMO repair.

30 be suitable for lung transplantation from an ECMO bridge.

31 In multivariable analysis, ECMO + iMV and iMV alone were independently associated w

32 l hMSC therapy in an ovine model of ARDS and ECMO can impair membrane oxygenator function and does no

33 ficacy of MSC therapy in a model of ARDS and ECMO.Methods: ARDS was induced in 14 sheep, after which

34 asive mechanical ventilation (iMV) only, and ECMO + iMV.

35 Annual ECMO mortality rates varied widely across ECMO centers:

36 at hospitals with more than 30 adult annual ECMO cases had significantly lower odds of mortality (ad

37 cedure, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ECMO placement, and age >65 years were independent predi

38 rs, and adverse events were compared between ECMO-supported patients (n=933) and INTERMACS profile 1

39 was continued for a minimum of 5 days (BLTx-ECMO group).

40 S profile 1 (IP-1) patients not supported by ECMO (n=2362).

41 ated with transferring patients supported by ECMO); and ethical considerations, areas of uncertainty,

42 ntrast, in historically high-volume centers, ECMO had no adverse influence on post-transplant surviva

43 nd that, in historically low-volume centers, ECMO was associated with increased post-transplant morta

44 Compared with conventional ECMO, TCS durations are longer, and more importantly, pa

45 or reported survival rates of short duration ECMO.

46 During ECMO, a low Vt ventilation strategy was employed in addi

47 s of bleeding and thrombosis are high during ECMO support.

48 tracranial hemorrhage) and thrombosis during ECMO support; (2) to identify factors associated with th

49 is a major contributor to transfusion during ECMO.

50 Early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation for patients with OHCA an

51 rvival was significantly better in the early ECMO group than in the standard ACLS group.

52 43%) of 14 patients (21.3-67.7) in the early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation group (risk difference 36

53 o standard ACLS treatment (n=15) or to early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation (n=15).

54 Patients were randomly assigned to early ECMO-facilitated resuscitation or standard ACLS treatmen

55 e used the framework of our well-established ECMO service-line to outline specific team structures, m

56 e" mechanical ventilation settings following ECMO initiation were associated with significantly lower

57 lar TCS-VAD, and 68 +/- 3% and 61 +/- 8% for ECMO.

58 ECMO, lower hospital volume, indication for ECMO after a cardiac procedure, cardiopulmonary resuscit

59 In cardiology, the main indications for ECMO include cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, post-car

60 , our center created a targeted protocol for ECMO therapy in COVID-19 patients that allows us to prov

61 Reason for ECMO discontinuation included native lung recovery (54%)

62 g some to believe that there was no role for ECMO in this viral illness.

63 Two patients weaned from ECMO, and 2 patients died on ECMO on the waiting list.

64 ars or older with confirmed COVID-19 who had ECMO support initiated between Jan 16 and May 1, 2020, a

65 4 patients, mean age 40.2 (18-83) years, had ECMO duration of mean 25.2 days/median 21.0 days (range:

66 ix-adjusted analysis, higher annual hospital ECMO volume was associated with lower mortality in 1989-

67 The measure of hospital ECMO volume was age group-specific and adjusted for pati

68 ly increased in recent years, and increasing ECMO duration did not alter the survival fraction in the

69 resource- and effort-intensive intervention, ECMO should not be used on unsalvageable patients.

70 Patients with shorter than median ECMO runtime (<108 h) had a similar long-term survival t

71 Patients with shorter than median ECMO runtime (<108 hours) had a similar long-term surviv

72 all survival rates of 50% to 70% with median ECMO duration of 10 days.

73 while ECMO was used more in those with MPE (ECMO in 40.9% [18 of 44], embolectomy in 59.1% [26 of 44

74 was similar between the ECMO (30.8%) and non-ECMO (31.8%) groups (P=0.49).

75 erior survival at 12 months (66.1%) than non-ECMO patients (75.4%; P<0.0001).

76 survival was significantly higher in the non-ECMO group (p = 0.004) but not when conditioned on hospi

77 survival was significantly higher in the non-ECMO group (P = 0.004) but not when conditioned on hospi

78 ECMO patients had similar outcomes to non-ECMO patients when a propensity matched cohort was analy

79 On the day of ECMO explantation (median, postoperative day 8), LV diam

80 erval 0.99-1.00], P = 0.019) and duration of ECMO support in days (odds ratio 0.65 [95% confidence in

81 CI 0.99 - 1.00), p = 0.019] and duration of ECMO support in days [OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 - 0.97), p =

82 An adverse effect of ECMO at the time of lung transplant was evident in low-v

83 ining the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ECMO should be a critical future goal.

84 interventions may attenuate the efficacy of ECMO.Objectives: To determine the safety and efficacy of

85 orldwide provide a generalisable estimate of ECMO mortality in the setting of COVID-19.

86 Influences of ECMO on post-transplant survival were estimated among ad

87 al mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 37.4% (95% CI 34.4-40.4).

88 al mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 38.0% (95% CI 34.6-41.5).

89 ions and contraindications; the logistics of ECMO initiation, management, and weaning; the general in

90 lexity measures can predict the mortality of ECMO patients.

91 CMO volume was associated with lower odds of ECMO mortality for neonates and adults but not for pedia

92 Outcomes of ECMO have improved despite increasing comorbidity.

93 ce 36.2%, 3.7-59.2; posterior probability of ECMO superiority 0.9861).

94 atients because the posterior probability of ECMO superiority exceeded the prespecified monitoring bo

95 e identified 3 series and 12 case reports of ECMO following OLT, with the majority of the literature

96 However, initial reports of ECMO use in patients with COVID-19 described very high m

97 ons and review the literature on the role of ECMO in the setting of OLT.

98 en no large, international cohort studies of ECMO for COVID-19 reported to date.

99 d cases and series that described the use of ECMO after liver transplantation in adult recipients.

100 The use of ECMO for circulatory support was independently associate

101 The use of ECMO for treatment of severe respiratory adult patients

102 ady increase was noted in the utilization of ECMO alone and with concomitant procedures (percutaneous

103 t included temporal trends in utilization of ECMO alone and with concomitant procedures (percutaneous

104 In multivariable analysis, earlier year of ECMO, lower hospital volume, indication for ECMO after a

105 lume in 2005-2010, with 8,228 adults (279 on ECMO) who underwent transplants at these centers between

106 ed to the Late group, Early repair of CDH on ECMO was associated with a lower mortality rate, HR 0.51

107 d on the waiting list after 9 and 63 days on ECMO, respectively.

108 ion (93.3%) died after 40.3 +/- 27.8 days on ECMO.

109 the patients are still alive with 1 death on ECMO, attributed to hemorrhagic stroke.

110 nts weaned from ECMO, and 2 patients died on ECMO on the waiting list.

111 lar assist device at listing (76%) or not on ECMO or ventricular assist device at listing (76%; P<0.0

112 Sixteen patients on ECMO after 7 days (1-11 d) of mechanical ventilation wer

113 erm survival was similar between patients on ECMO alone and those not on support but significantly wo

114 ng (censored at Tx) was worse in patients on ECMO at listing (50%) compared with ventricular assist d

115 art allocation policy designates patients on ECMO or with nondischargeable, surgically implanted, non

116 breathing patients compared with patients on ECMO with mechanical ventilation, but this strategy has

117 Eight patients were placed on ECMO (0.4%), 5 men and 3 women aged 28 to 68 years (4 ve

118 t a series of adult OLT recipients placed on ECMO after transplantation for both respiratory and card

119 Aim 2-Compare Early versus Late repair on ECMO.

120 to the After ECMO group, patients in the On ECMO group demonstrated a lower mortality rate, hazard r

121 .93%) required only iMV, 119 (0.96%) were on ECMO + iMV, and the remaining 11,607 (94.6%) required no

122 Sixty-five patients (0.52%) were on ECMO only, 612 (4.93%) required only iMV, 119 (0.96%) we

123 and cytokines were comparable within each on-ECMO experimental step, but the lowest bronchoalveolar l

124 l ultra-protective ventilation strategy once ECMO is initiated remains undetermined and warrants furt

125 om 2011 to 2015 who received a TCS device or ECMO as a bridge to transplant were identified using Org

126 ontent after reperfusion compared with IR or ECMO.

127 V-P-supported reperfusion but not with IR or ECMO.

128 ly worse with patients requiring iMV only or ECMO + iMV.

129 hildren a meaningful survival advantage over ECMO.

130 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) artificially supports respiratory and cardiac func

131 ge over extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to transplant.

132 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be used as a supportive therapy to improve out

133 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has long served as the standard of care for short-

134 Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in adults with severe acute respiratory distress s

135 during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndro

136 tiating extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with respiratory failure may cause cer

137 rterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a rescue therapy that can stabilize patients wi

138 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is being increasingly used as a bridge to lung tra

139 tion of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is expanding despite limited outcome data defining

140 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly used in acute myocardial infarctio

141 IONALE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used for respiratory and cardiac failure in chi

142 ovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may therefore rescue the sickest patients with ARD

143 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides circulatory and respiratory support for p

144 rterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) reduced infarct size.

145 n in an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) setting in rabbits, all without increasing the ble

146 use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic resp

147 tory of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) underwent PT (11% vs 2%, p=0.049).

148 rted by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) who undergo durable mechanical circulatory support

149 nsplant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and on index hospitalization length of stay (LOS)

150 USA of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-facilitated resuscitation versus standard ACLS tre

151 ongside extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

152 rterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

153 mainly extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

154 rterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) is safe and effective.

155 elies on extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO).

156 Although P-ECMO survival rates are less than short ECMO runs, P-ECM

157 tutional studies have examined outcomes of P-ECMO for severe respiratory failure.

158 Increased prevalence of P-ECMO was noted with 72% (701/974) of all cases reported

159 adult (>/=18 years) patients who required P-ECMO for severe respiratory failure from 1989 to 2013 we

160 vival rates are less than short ECMO runs, P-ECMO support is justified.

161 ogistic regression analysis confirmed that P-ECMO patients 2007 to 2013 had a lower risk of death [od

162 In 23 BLTx for severe PH, ECMO used during BLTx was continued for a minimum of 5 d

163 first 24 hours was calculated as (24-h post-ECMO Pa(CO(2)) - pre-ECMO Pa(CO(2)))/pre-ECMO Pa(CO(2)).

164 alculated as (24-h post-ECMO Pa(CO(2)) - pre-ECMO Pa(CO(2)))/pre-ECMO Pa(CO(2)).

165 ost-ECMO Pa(CO(2)) - pre-ECMO Pa(CO(2)))/pre-ECMO Pa(CO(2)).

166 no difference in the need for pretransplant ECMO (incidence rate ratio = 1.16, P = .12).

167 no significant differences in pretransplant ECMO or other posttransplant outcomes.

168 ase single lung transplants or pretransplant ECMO utilization.

169 Prolonged ECMO survival significantly increased in recent years, a

170 Prolonged ECMO use for adult respiratory failure was associated wi

171 Adult patients who received ECMO from September 1, 2002, to December 31, 2012, were

172 for 1035 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO support were included in this study.

173 In patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mo

174 survival outcomes for patients who received ECMO.

175 l, 0.46-0.80) compared with adults receiving ECMO at hospitals with less than six annual cases.

176 ng adults with respiratory failure receiving ECMO via any mode between 2012 and 2017.

177 MO centres, with 130 controls (not receiving ECMO) obtained from three large databases of septic shoc

178 urvival compared with controls not receiving ECMO.

179 Patients receiving ECMO at hospitals with more than 30 adult annual ECMO ca

180 < 0.001).Conclusions: In patients receiving ECMO for respiratory failure, a large relative decrease

181 erm survival to patients who did not require ECMO (p = 0.559).

182 erm survival to patients who did not require ECMO (P = 0.559).

183 Pediatric patients requiring ECMO support before heart Tx have poor outcomes.

184 ess of initial pathology, patients requiring ECMO were critically ill with similar guarded prognoses.

185 e implantation of dMCS in carefully selected ECMO patients.

186 gh P-ECMO survival rates are less than short ECMO runs, P-ECMO support is justified.

187 For 1989-2013, higher age group-specific ECMO volume was associated with lower odds of ECMO morta

188 r type of pretransplant support: no support, ECMO only, invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) only, a

189 A multivariable analysis showed that ECMO is an independent risk factor of poor outcome after

190 Multivariable analysis showed that ECMO was an independent risk factor associated with poor

191 t 2 years after dMCS was similar between the ECMO (30.8%) and non-ECMO (31.8%) groups (P=0.49).

192 In the ECMO cohort, multivariable logistic regression revealed

193 In the ECMO cohort, multivariable logistic regression revealed

194 or the incidence of major haemorrhage in the ECMO group.

195 One patient in the ECMO-facilitated resuscitation group withdrew from the s

196 Compared with the ECMO cohort, the PS-matched TCS cohort had longer surviv

197 r institution between 2007 and 2018 with the ECMO database of our institution and described these cas

198 ing occasional external lung support through ECMO or ECCOR (with subsequent further exposure to other

199 ll TCS-VAD types continued to be superior to ECMO (p = 0.019) and similar to LVAD (p = 0.380).

200 nt survival with a TCS device is superior to ECMO after adjusting for patient differences.

201 nsplant survival with TCS-VAD is superior to ECMO and similar to LVAD in a national database.

202 Compared with patients undergoing ECMO before 2009, later patients were older (54.4 versus

203 The fundamental premise underlying ECMO is that it is a bridge-to recovery, to a more durab

204 1286 patients aged >/=18 years who underwent ECMO in New York State from 2003 to 2014.

205 f the magnitude of Pa(CO(2)) correction upon ECMO initiation is associated with an increased incidenc

206 eries have described increased success using ECMO in spontaneously breathing patients compared with p

207 014, a retrospective cohort of AMI utilizing ECMO was identified.

208 with COVID-19 associated ARDS placed on V-V ECMO at our institution.

209 are needed to define best practices for V-V ECMO use in COVID-19.

210 on of MCS by Impella microaxial pumps and VA-ECMO enables stabilization and may rescue high-risk pati

211 Impella pumps and VA-ECMO were combined early (duration of combined MCS: medi

212 t ventricular unloading strategies during VA-ECMO in adult patients with cardiogenic shock.

213 amining left ventricular unloading during VA-ECMO in Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library.

214 However, VA-ECMO might hamper myocardial recovery.

215 y to evaluate risk factors for the use of VA-ECMO and related morbidity and long-term survival.

216 , to evaluate risk factors for the use of VA-ECMO and related morbidity and long-term survival.

217 = 0.019] were associated with the use of VA-ECMO.

218 = 0.019) were associated with the use of VA-ECMO.

219 t ventricular unloading strategy while on VA-ECMO (intra-aortic balloon pump 91.7%, percutaneous vent

220 (65%) left ventricular unloading while on VA-ECMO (risk ratio: 0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to

221 We compared outcomes of 80 patients on VA-ECMO at listing to outcomes of the comparison group.

222 rimary therapy on survival in patients on VA-ECMO at listing.

223 a survival benefit in listed patients on VA-ECMO even if posttransplant survival remains inferior th

224 Early recovery of PGD on VA-ECMO support negates its negative impact on short and lo

225 Early recovery of PGD on VA-ECMO support negates its negative impact on short- and l

226 us is granted to transplant candidates on VA-ECMO than to those on long-term mechanical circulatory s

227 Patients on VA-ECMO were more often on ventilator and dialysis and had

228 e primary therapy in selected patients on VA-ECMO.

229 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a widely used form of mechanical circulatory su

230 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used as a short-term circulatory s

231 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used to treat cardiogenic shock.

232 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may facilitate graft rescue.

233 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may facilitate graft rescue.

234 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock refra

235 rial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO]) in refractory CS and aimed to determine factors f

236 =18 years) with septic shock who received VA-ECMO at five academic ECMO centres, with 130 controls (n

237 loped left or biventricular PGD requiring VA-ECMO.

238 loped left or biventricular PGD requiring VA-ECMO.

239 One-year survival in the VA-ECMO cohort was 71%.

240 ar posttransplant survival was 70% in the VA-ECMO group and 81% in comparison group (P = 0.06).

241 In the VA-ECMO group, a Cox proportional hazard model with transpl

242 In the VA-ECMO group, transplantation was associated with a lower

243 ppropriately selected patients undergoing VA-ECMO support.

244 ysis was higher in patients who underwent VA-ECMO with left ventricular unloading.

245 ients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO and call for further validation, ideally in a rando

246 is-induced cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO had a large and significant improvement in survival

247 At baseline, patients treated with VA-ECMO had more severe myocardial dysfunction (mean cardia

248 ients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO was associated with lower mortality.

249 long-term survival of PGD supported with VA-ECMO was better than previously described.

250 long-term survival of PGD supported with VA-ECMO was better than previously described.

251 ival at 90 days for patients treated with VA-ECMO was significantly higher than for controls (60% vs

252 ients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO with or without left ventricular unloading using an

253 trably different in patients treated with VA-ECMO with versus without left ventricular unloading.

254 ients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO, despite higher complication rates.

255 ients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO.

256 emains inferior than for patients without VA-ECMO.

257 e severely sick (Survival After Venoarterial ECMO score mean+/-SD, -8.9+/-4.4) predicting 30% in-hosp

258 effectively bridged with awake venoarterial ECMO.

259 Surgical embolectomy and/or venoarterial ECMO were compared, between 2005 and 2019, for massive P

260 Venovenous ECMO support was most common (venovenous: 79.5%, venoart

261 Venovenous ECMO was used in 10, venoarterial in 4, interventional l

262 mend the safe use of hMSCs during venovenous ECMO.

263 imals were connected to high-flow venovenous ECMO, and randomized into three groups: 1) nonprotective

264 However, venovenous ECMO was also associated with a moderate risk of major b

265 al mechanical ventilation, use of venovenous ECMO in adults with severe acute respiratory distress sy

266 However, the efficacy of venovenous ECMO in people with acute respiratory distress syndrome

267 e aimed to estimate the effect of venovenous ECMO on mortality from acute respiratory distress syndro

268 er which they were established on venovenous ECMO.

269 ess syndrome at centres providing venovenous ECMO.

270 Successful venovenous ECMO treatment in patients with extremely severe H1N1-as

271 ty was significantly lower in the venovenous ECMO group than in the control group (73 [34%] of 214 vs

272 , 88% of whom were supported with venovenous ECMO.

273 ical ventilation with and without venovenous ECMO in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

274 COVID-19 receiving respiratory (venovenous) ECMO and characterised as having acute respiratory distr

275 ng lung transplantation, those supported via ECMO with spontaneous breathing demonstrated improved su

276 VV ECMO can be utilized as an advanced therapy in select pa

277 his is 1 the first case series describing VV ECMO outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

278 The median duration of VV ECMO therapy for patients who have been decannulated is

279 Massachusetts, 6 patients were placed on VV ECMO for refractory hypoxemic respiratory failure.

280 Our initial data suggest that VV ECMO can be successfully utilized in appropriately selec

281 After propensity score weighting, ECMO remained associated with improved survival (51% vs

282 urvival statistics deteriorated sharply when ECMO was required for >3 days.

283 l compared with nonsupport patients, whereas ECMO alone was not significant.

284 spiratory failure but do not predict whether ECMO will enhance survival.

285 d with embolectomy (98.9% [91 of 92]), while ECMO was used more in those with MPE (ECMO in 40.9% [18

286 ant that was modestly reduced (from 45% with ECMO to 39% with TCS).

287 ular assist devices (LVADs), 177 (0.7%) with ECMO, 203 (0.8%) with TCS-VAD, 44 (0.2%) with percutaneo

288 Initial mortality rates associated with ECMO for ARDS in COVID-19 were high, leading some to bel

289 mortality in patients who were bridged with ECMO to dMCS.

290 iated with higher in-hospital mortality with ECMO use.

291 In-hospital mortality with ECMO was 59.2% overall but decreased from 100% (2000) to

292 S)-matched cohort of children supported with ECMO as a bridge to transplant.

293 atory distress syndrome model supported with ECMO, near-apneic ventilation decreased histologic lung

294 Among the 49 survivors treated with ECMO, 32 who had been treated at the largest centre repo

295 remained high in AMI admissions treated with ECMO.

296 Twenty-one were treated with ECMO.

297 nificantly enhanced in patients treated with ECMO.

298 ge was 45.4% (443/974) and did not vary with ECMO duration.

299 two historic control groups of BLTx without ECMO (BLTx ventilation) or combined heart-lung transplan

300 respiratory failure treated with or without ECMO from March 2012 to August 2015.