The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Maastricht Treaty for Nomenclature in Extracorporeal Life Support. A Position Paper of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization

• Published in: American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine Vol. 198; no. 4; pp. 447 - 451
• Main Authors: Conrad, Steven A., Broman, L. Mikael, Taccone, Fabio S., Lorusso, Roberto, Malfertheiner, Maximilian V., Pappalardo, Federico, Di Nardo, Matteo, Belliato, Mirko, Grazioli, Lorenzo, Barbaro, Ryan P., McMullan, D. Michael, Pellegrino, Vincent, Brodie, Daniel, Bembea, Melania M., Fan, Eddy, Mendonca, Malaika, Diaz, Rodrigo, Bartlett, Robert H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Thoracic Society 15.08.2018
• Subjects: Abbreviations; Clinical medicine; Critical Care; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Intensive care; Language; Pediatrics; Respiratory distress syndrome; Respiratory therapy; Task forces; Terminology; West Asia; Asia; North America; Africa; Latin America; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; cannula; extracorporeal circulation; terminology; membrane oxygenators
• ISSN: 1073-449X; 1535-4970; 1535-4970
• DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201710-2130CP

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) was developed more than 50 years ago, initially with venoarterial and subsequently with venovenous configurations. As the technique of ECLS significantly improved and newer skills developed, complexity in terminology and advances in cannula design led to some misunderstanding of and inconsistency in definitions, both in clinical practice and in scientific research. This document is a consensus of multispecialty international representatives of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, including the North America, Latin America, EuroELSO, South West Asia and Africa, and Asia-Pacific chapters, imparting a global perspective on ECLS. The goal is to provide a consistent and unambiguous nomenclature for ECLS and to overcome the inconsistent use of abbreviations for ECLS cannulation. Secondary benefits are ease of multicenter collaboration in research, improved registry data quality, and clear communication among practitioners and researchers in the field.