Abstract:Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is the use of an artificial heart/lung machine outside the body which takes over the function of the heart and lungs by supplying oxygen to the blood and removing carbon dioxide. It can be used for several days to allow time for the lungs or heart to recover from damage. The technology for this process has evolved from cardiopulmonary bypass which has been used for many years in surgery of the heart and major blood vessels. The technique was first used successfully in 1972,’ but only in the last 15 years has the use of ECMO become widespread, particularly in the United States. Although there are now over 50 accredited ECMO centres in the United States, there is only one in the United Kingdom. Most experience with ECMO has been derived from newborn infants and there is much less experience with infants and children. ECMO has been used most commonly as a support method of last resort for neonates born near or at term with potentially reversible respiratory failure and who have less than 20% expected chance of survival despite maximum use of conventional treatment. The main indications in neonates are respiratory distress syndrome, persistent pulmonary hypertension, meconium aspiration syndrome, sepsis and congenital diaphragmatic hernia.* As a general rule, immature infants less than 34 weeks or less than 2000 g are not treated with ECMO because vascular access is more difficult and the need for anticoagulation carries a high risk of periventricular haemorrhage and consequent neurological damage. New approaches to avoid anticoagulation are currently being developed and include the use of venovenous and heparin-bonded circuits. These developments have the potential to improve safety, lower costs and increase case-loads. Contraindications for ECMO therapy include grade 2-4 periventricular haemorrhage. congenital heart disease, mechanical ventilation for greater than 10 days and pre-existing cerebral insult. It is generally expected that each ECMO centre and referral institution should develop criteria predicting 80% mortality for neonates when conventional treatment for cardiorespiratory failure is continued. Selection criteria for children older than 4 weeks are less clearly defined, although it is generally accepted that conventional medical therapy must have failed, the risk of death must be high and the pulmonary disorder present must be reversible. The major indications for its use are adult respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis with serious lung dysfunction and perioperative support of congenital heart disease. Claims that ECMO substantially reduces the risk of death in immature newborn infants and some forms of respiratory failure have been based largely on comparisons of survival rates following ECMO with predicted rates based on historical controls receiving conventional mechanical ventilation. Such studies are notoriously prone to bias and there is indeed evidence to suggest that survival rates in such infants have improved over time irrespective of the use of ECMO. ECMO has been compared with conventional management in two small randomized trials conducted in North America.3~~ Although both stated that ECMO support is an effective management, there has been widespread reluctance to accept this because their unconventional methodological designs meant that very few infants were allocated to conventional management, therefore it remains unclear whether ECMO is an improvement over conventional management for relatively mature newborn infants with these conditions. Despite the lack of conclusive evidence of effectiveness, ECMO is now widely available in many countries, particularly the United States. The balance of opinion in established ECMO centres seems to support the use of ECMO without the need for further trials. It is suggested that the optimal time to evaluate ECMO in a randomized controlled trial is when it is at the very early stages of its introduction into practice.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in newborn babies

When Privacy Protection Goes Wrong: How and Why the 2020 Census Confidentiality Program Failed

Escalation of Commitment: A Case Study of the United States Census Bureau Efforts to Implement Differential Privacy for the 2020 Decennial Census

The 2010 Census Confidentiality Protections Failed, Here's How and Why

An Examination of the Alleged Privacy Threats of Confidence-Ranked Reconstruction of Census Microdata

Database Reconstruction Is Not So Easy and Is Different from Reidentification

Stop or Continue Data Collection: A Nonignorable Missing Data Approach for Continuous Variables

Quantifying Privacy Risks of Public Statistics to Residents of Subsidized Housing

Evaluating bias and noise induced by the U.S. Census Bureau's privacy protection methods

Post-randomization for Controlling Identification Risk in Releasing Microdata from General Surveys

Random (Un)rounding : Vulnerabilities in Discrete Attribute Disclosure in the 2021 Canadian Census

A Note on the Misinterpretation of the US Census Re-identification Attack

Comment: The Essential Role of Policy Evaluation for the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System

Assessing Statistical Disclosure Risk for Differentially Private, Hierarchical Count Data, with Application to the 2020 U.S. Decennial Census

Confidentiality Protection in the 2020 US Census of Population and Housing

The future of census coverage surveys

Rejective Sampling, Rerandomization and Regression Adjustment in Survey Experiments

An In-Depth Examination of Requirements for Disclosure Risk Assessment

Differential Privacy Protections in 2020 U.S. Decennial Census Data Do Not Impede Measurement of Racial and Ethnic Disparities

"Minus-One" Data Prediction Generates Synthetic Census Data with Good Crosstabulation Fidelity

The Impact of the U.S. Census Disclosure Avoidance System on Redistricting and Voting Rights Analysis