Perspective
Inter-hospital transports on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in different health-care systems
Abstract
The feasibility and the recognition of the possibility to transport patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) aroused in the 1970s. The number of transporting facilities worldwide was less than 20 in the beginning of the second Millennium. In 2009 the H1N1 pandemic and a publication showing survival benefit for adult patients transported to a hospital with ECMO resource increased both awareness and interest for ECMO treatment. The number of transport organizations increased rapidly. As of today, the number of transport organizations increases world-wide, though some centers where ECMO is an established treatment report decreasing numbers of transports. Since the introduction of the more user-friendly equipment (ECMO-2 era) increasing numbers of low-volume ECMO centers perform these complex treatments. This overview is based on the current literature, personal experience in the field, and information from the authors’ network on the organization of ECMO transport systems in different settings of health care around the globe. Registry data since the entry into ECMO-2 shows that the number of ECMO treatments matter. The more treatments performed at a given center the better the patient outcome, and the better these resources are spent for the population served. A Hub-and-Spoke model for national or regional organization for respiratory ECMO (rECMO) should be advocated where central high-volume ECMO center (Hub) serves a population of 10 to 15 million. Peripheral units (Spokes) play an important part in emergency cannulations keeping the patient on ECMO support till a mobile ECMO team retrieves the patient. This ECMO team is preferably organized from the Hub and brings competencies for assessment and decision to initiate ECMO treatment bedside at any hospital, for cannulation, and a safe transport to any destination. To conclude, most ECMO transport organizations are reflections of the health care paradigm within which they act. Most transport organizations are established by the staff within who recognize the need. The legal space seems open in most countries; anyone may set up a transport organization anywhere. Quality follow-up varies. Some keep track of adverse events and report whereas most transport entities do not seem to prioritize this. There is no international body for ECMO transports. Such would be the key for definitions, support, networking, and a registry that successively would increase knowledge concerning adverse events, morbidity and mortality.