In recent years more success has been realized in mature Patients but perhaps that is because they treatment has been expanded greatly and so the results have demonstrated more positive ends. That and advancements have been realized. Still, most recipients of this method of treatment are not provided with significantly extended life spans, certainly not to my knowledge. If one needs to have their blood moved outside of their body for ‘fixing’ then it is almost certainly prudent to have a last Will and Testament organized, registered, and in proper order.
Regarding blood transfusions, since the GRID AKA AIDS epidemic of 4 decades ago came onto the scene it was recognized that blood transfusions are inherently dangerous.
These days, in order to receive a transfusion a Patient must sign a waiver acknowledging that transfused blood cannot be guaranteed to be 100% safe from viral infection. Of course a baby cannot give consent. In the case discussed here, the parents demanded untainted blood. The hospital seems to have not complied with that ‘request.’ The hospital is liable for the death of this baby. They might have just let the baby croak on its own, but they pushed in the blood with thrombotic issues contrary to the wishes and insistence of the family. This is a crime.
How could you defend that?
1. You are confusing ECMO as a treatment versus ECMO as a modality for surgery. You do realize you have to stop the beer heart to fix a structural abnormality. So when this child had repair of his double outlet right ventricle you see seer he was put on cardiopulmonary bypass aka ECMO. The heart was stopped with a high potassium concentration via infusion through the corners Ostia of the aortic valve and retrograde by way of the venous sinus. You cite information on ecmo for treatment. Which ironically was something early in COVID the antivaxxers were screaming as a treatment. I agree ecmo for ards is the longest of shots.
2. Blood transfusions have also had risks beyond just 40 years ago. Major histocompatibility issues have always been the most feared but minor issues related to antibodies screens beyond rh factor can be equally as detrimental in the long run.
3. I imagine with the changing clinical scenario which in the postoperative phase would have developed the parents consented. Additionally when one consents to surgery one consents to all treatments that are required as a result of the procedure. Certainly one can opt out of transfusion and I am more than certain that the parents ultimately consented
All you have demonstrated here is that it must look good from the cheap seats. Your total lack of understanding that extracorporeal membranous oxygenation ( literally out of body oxygenation) is required for any heart surgery except for OPCAB which was certainly exciting but not out of vogue demonstrates the illiteracy of medicine that most people have but pronounce their absolute understanding of what is going on relative to vaccinations.
Your attempt to show you know what you are talking about has boomeranged. To be clear are you saying that ECMO is not required for cardiac surgery and that it is not safe. That is what you said in paragraph one. Are you sure you want to stick by that answer?
This is my answer to your questions. You do not know what you are talking about as is often the case when someone tries tries to contextualize an issue in which the have no understanding.