scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Robert H. Bartlett

Bio: Robert H. Bartlett is an academic researcher from University of Michigan. The author has contributed to research in topics: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation & Extracorporeal. The author has an hindex of 81, co-authored 550 publications receiving 25619 citations. Previous affiliations of Robert H. Bartlett include University of California, Irvine & NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
16 Nov 1979-JAMA
TL;DR: It is concluded that ECMO can support respiratory gas exchange but did not increase the probability of long-term survival in patients with severe ARF.
Abstract: Nine medical centers collaborated in a prospective randomized study to evaluate prolonged extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a therapy for severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). Ninety adult patients were selected by common criteria of arterial hypoxemia and treated with either conventional mechanical ventilation (48 patients) or mechanical ventilation supplemented with partial venoarterial bypass (42 patients). Four patients in each group survived. The majority of patients suffered acute bacterial or viral pneumonia (57%). All nine patients with pulmonary embolism and six patients with posttraumatic acute respiratory failure died. The majority of patients died of progressive reduction of transpulmonary gas exchange and decreased compliance due to diffuse pulmonary inflammation, necrosis, and fibrosis. We conclude that ECMO can support respiratory gas exchange but did not increase the probability of long-term survival in patients with severe ARF. (JAMA242:2193-2196, 1979)

1,194 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a prospective controlled randomized study of the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to treat newborns with respiratory failure was carried out using the randomized play-the-winner statistical method, where the chance of randomly assigning an infant to one treatment or the other is influenced by the outcome of treatment of each patient in the study.
Abstract: A prospective controlled randomized study of the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to treat newborns with respiratory failure was carried out using the "randomized play-the-winner" statistical method. In this method the chance of randomly assigning an infant to one treatment or the other is influenced by the outcome of treatment of each patient in the study. If one treatment is more successful, more patients are randomly assigned to that treatment. A group of 12 infants with birth weight greater than 2 kg met objective criteria for high mortality risk. One patient was randomly assigned to conventional treatment (that patient died); 11 patients were randomly chosen for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (all survived). Intracerebral hemorrhage occurred in one of 11 surviving children. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation allows lung rest and improves survival compared to conventional ventilator therapy in newborn infants with severe respiratory failure.

648 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A prospective controlled randomized study of the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to treat newborns with respiratory failure using the "randomized play-the-winner" statistical method, which allows lung rest and improves survival compared to conventional ventilator therapy in newborn infants with severe respiratory failure.

549 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that ECMO can support respiratory gas exchange but did not increase the probability of long-term survival in patients with severe ARF.
Abstract: Nine medical centers collaborated in a prospective randomized study to evaluate prolonged extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a therapy for severe acute respiratory failure (ARF). Ninety adult patients were selected by common criteria of arterial hypoxemia and treated with either conventional mechanical ventilation (48 patients) or mechanical ventilation supplemented with partial venoarterial bypass (42 patients). Four patients in each group survived. The majority of patients suffered acute bacterial or viral pneumonia (57%). All nine patients with pulmonary embolism and six patients with posttraumatic acute respiratory failure died. The majority of patients died of progressive reduction of transpulmonary gas exchange and decreased compliance due to diffuse pulmonary inflammation, necrosis, and fibrosis. We conclude that ECMO can support respiratory gas exchange but did not increase the probability of long-term survival in patients with severe ARF.

524 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008 is provided.
Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at ke

9,137 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened in 2008 to provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock".
Abstract: To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao 2/Fi o 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

6,283 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An overview of the definitions, clinical features, and epidemiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome is provided and advances in the areas of pathogenesis, resolution, and treatment are discussed.
Abstract: The acute respiratory distress syndrome is a common, devastating clinical syndrome of acute lung injury that affects both medical and surgical patients. Since the last review of this syndrome appeared in the Journal, 1 more uniform definitions have been devised and important advances have occurred in the understanding of the epidemiology, natural history, and pathogenesis of the disease, leading to the design and testing of new treatment strategies. This article provides an overview of the definitions, clinical features, and epidemiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome and discusses advances in the areas of pathogenesis, resolution, and treatment. Historical Perspective and Definitions . . .

5,002 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

4,303 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, published in 2004.
Abstract: Objective To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004.

3,928 citations