Qualitative study of adversity activated development and resilience in adolescents and young adults with congenital heart disease and their parents

What is it like to have a medical condition that few people have ever heard about? How does it feel to have to question whether daily physical activities are dangerous for you, whilst you watch your friends enjoy those activities without a care? Can you imagine that you need to have a complicated heart surgery, with risks such as paralysis or death? Or even imagine facing the painful recovery period and scars after such a surgery? Then imagine that you are a child or teenager dealing with this medical condition when all your friends are simply occupied with school and normal life. Now consider that surgery has been undertaken to extend your lifespan, but the operation is so new that the long-term outcomes are just not known? All you really know is that you might have ‘surgical repairs’ to your heart and symptoms may be relieved or managed by medications or cardiac devices, but you are never going to be cured. What if you had already experienced painful, frightening, lonely and tedious hospitalisations and you were forced to put your life on hold to re-enter that situation, time and time again. This may be your life, as a Congenital Heart Disease or CHD patient. How do such patients cope and in many cases even thrive? This chapter will review current international literature regarding the medical and personal impact of CHD. Our qualitative study of the perspectives of young CHD patients and their parents contributes to the Australian story of CHD, as well as highlighting the potential for CHD related adversity to promote personal development.

Increased sedation requirements in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory and cardiorespiratory failure

Critically ill patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are often noted to have increased sedation requirements. However, data related to sedation in this complex group of patients is limited. The aim of our study was to characterise the sedation requirements in adult patients receiving ECMO for cardiorespiratory failure. A retrospective chart review was performed to collect sedation data for 30 consecutive patients who received venovenous or venoarterial ECMO between April 2009 and March 2011. To test for a difference in doses over time we used a regression model. The dose of midazolam received on ECMO support increased by an average of 18 mg per day (95% confidence interval 8, 29 mg, P=0.001), while the dose of morphine increased by 29 mg per day (95% confidence interval 4, 53 mg, P=0.021) The venovenous group received a daily midazolam dose that was 157 mg higher than the venoarterial group (95% confidence interval 53, 261 mg, P=0.005). We did not observe any significant increase in fentanyl doses over time (95% confidence interval 1269, 4337 µg, P=0.94). There is a significant increase in dose requirement for morphine and midazolam during ECMO. Patients on venovenous ECMO received higher sedative doses as compared to patients on venoarterial ECMO. Future research should focus on mechanisms behind these changes and also identify drugs that are most suitable for sedation during ECMO.