Diaphragm thickness modifications and associated factors during VA-ECMO for a cardiogenic shock: a cohort study

Annals of Intensive Care

Table 2 Patients outcomes in patients with or without diaphragm atrophy

Variable	Patient outcomes according to three groups of diaphragm thickness evolution (: stable, atrophy, increase) using a ultrasound method				Patient outcomes according to the absence or the presence of diaphragm atrophy using a ultrasound method
Variable	Increase, N = 4¹	Decrease, N = 7¹	Stable, N = 18¹	p-value²	Non-atrophy, N = 22¹	Atrophy, N = 7¹	p-value³
Deceased before VA-ECMO weaning	1 (25%)	3 (43%)	4 (22%)	0.7	5 (23%)	3 (43%)	0.4
VA-ECMO weaning failure	1 (25%)	4 (57%)	7 (39%)	0.6	8 (36%)	4 (57%)	0.4
VA-ECMO days	5 [3.8, 7]	4 [2, 6]	6.5 [4, 11]	0.2	6 [4, 10]	4 [2, 6]	0.10
Days with mechanical ventilation	4 [2, 5]	8 [7, 20]	5 [1, 11]	0.059	5 [1, 10]	8 [7, 20]	0.029
Ventilator free days at day 60	55 [40, 58]	7 [0, 29]	54 [20, 59]	0.056	54 [20, 59]	7 [0, 29]	0.018
Deceased at day 60	1 (25%)	5 (71%)	4 (22%)	0.063	5 (23%)	5 (71%)	0.030
Deceased at day 7	1 (25%)	3 (43%)	1 (5.6%)	0.059	2 (9.1%)	3 (43%)	0.075

Results are reported for patients according to their diaphragm evolution status at the end of patient follow up. The population was divided in three categories whether the diaphragm thickness presented a 10% decrease, increase or remained stable from baseline to the last assessment. Outcomes are presented after 60 days of follow-up (unless otherwise specified)
¹n (%); Median [interquartile range]
²Fisher’s exact test; Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test
³Fisher’s exact test; Wilcoxon rank sum test