Dataset Information

Extracorporeal life support with left ventricular decompression-improved survival in severe cardiogenic shock: results from a retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a life-saving procedure used in the treatment of severe cardiogenic shock. Within this retrospective single centre study, we examined our experience in this critically ill patient cohort to assess outcomes and clinical parameters by comparison of ECLS with or without selective left ventricular decompression. METHODS:Between 2004 and 2014 we evaluated 48 adult patients with INTERMACS level 1 heart failure (age 49.7 ± 19.5 years), who received either central ECLS with (n = 20, 41.7%) or ECLS without (n = 28, 58.3%, including 10 peripheral ECLS) integrated left ventricular vent in our retrospective single centre trial. RESULTS:Follow up was 100% with a mean of 0.83 ± 1.85 years. Bridge to ventricular assist device was feasible in 29.2% (n = 14), bridge to transplant in 10.4% (n = 5) and bridge to recovery in 8.3% (n = 4). Overall 30-day survival was 37.5%, 6-month survival 27.1% and 1-year survival 25.0%. ECLS support with left ventricular decompression showed favourable 30-day survival compared to ECLS without left ventricular decompression (p = 0.034). Thirty-day as well as long-term survival did not differ between the subgroups (central ECLS with vent, ECLS without vent and peripheral ECLS without vent). Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age and gender revealed ECLS without vent as independent factor influencing 30-day survival. CONCLUSION:ECLS is an established therapy for patients in severe cardiogenic shock. Independent of the ECLS approach, 30-day mortality is still high but with superior 30-day survival for patients with ECLS and left ventricular venting. Moreover, by unloading the ventricle, left ventricular decompression may provide an important time window for recovery or further treatment, such as bridge to bridge or bridge to transplant.

SUBMITTER: Schmack B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5624302 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Extracorporeal life support with left ventricular decompression-improved survival in severe cardiogenic shock: results from a retrospective study.

Schmack Bastian B Seppelt Philipp P Weymann Alexander A Alt Christina C Farag Mina M Arif Rawa R Doesch Andreas O AO Raake Philip W PW Kallenbach Klaus K Mansur Ashham A Popov Aron-Frederik AF Karck Matthias M Ruhparwar Arjang A

PeerJ 20170929

<h4>Objective</h4>Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a life-saving procedure used in the treatment of severe cardiogenic shock. Within this retrospective single centre study, we examined our experience in this critically ill patient cohort to assess outcomes and clinical parameters by comparison of ECLS with or without selective left ventricular decompression.<h4>Methods</h4>Between 2004 and 2014 we evaluated 48 adult patients with INTERMACS level 1 heart failure (age 49.7 ± 19.5 years), who ...[more]

PMID: 28975053

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionVeno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly being used to treat rapidly progressing or severe cardiogenic shock. However, it has been repeatedly shown that increased afterload associated with ECLS significantly diminishes left ventricular (LV) performance. The objective of the present study was to compare LV function and coronary flow during standard continuous-flow ECLS support and electrocardiogram (ECG)-synchronized pulsatile ECLS flow in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock.MethodsSixteen female swine (mean body weight 45 kg) underwent ECLS implantation under general anesthesia and artificial ventilation. Subsequently, acute cardiogenic shock, with documented signs of tissue hypoperfusion, was induced by initiating global myocardial hypoxia. Hemodynamic cardiac performance variables and coronary flow were then measured at different rates of continuous or pulsatile ECLS flow (ranging from 1 L/min to 4 L/min) using arterial and venous catheters, a pulmonary artery catheter, an LV pressure-volume loop catheter, and a Doppler coronary guide-wire.ResultsMyocardial hypoxia resulted in declines in mean cardiac output to 1.7±0.7 L/min, systolic blood pressure to 64±22 mmHg, and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) to 22±7%. Synchronized pulsatile flow was associated with a significant reduction in LV end-systolic volume by 6.2 mL (6.7%), an increase in LV stroke volume by 5.0 mL (17.4%), higher LVEF by 4.5% (18.8% relative), cardiac output by 0.37 L/min (17.1%), and mean arterial pressure by 3.0 mmHg (5.5%) when compared with continuous ECLS flow at all ECLS flow rates (P<0.05). At selected ECLS flow rates, pulsatile flow also reduced LV end-diastolic pressure, end-diastolic volume, and systolic pressure. ECG-synchronized pulsatile flow was also associated with significantly increased (7% to 22%) coronary flow at all ECLS flow rates.ConclusionECG-synchronized pulsatile ECLS flow preserved LV function and coronary flow compared with standard continuous-flow ECLS in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock.

Project description:ObjectiveLeft ventricular (LV) distention is a feared complication in patients receiving venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). LV unloading can be achieved indirectly with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or directly with an Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, Mass). We sought to assess the clinical and hemodynamic effects of IABP and Impella devices on patients supported with VA ECMO.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of VA ECMO patients at our institution from January 2015 to June 2020. Patients were categorized as either ECMO alone or ECMO with LV unloading. LV unloading was characterized as either ECMO with IABP or ECMO with Impella. We recorded baseline characteristics, survival, complications, and hemodynamic changes associated with device initiation.ResultsDuring the study, 143 patients received ECMO alone whereas 140 received ECMO with LV unloading (68 ECMO with IABP, 72 ECMO with Impella). ECMO with Impella patients had a higher incidence of bleeding events compared with ECMO alone or ECMO with IABP (52.8% vs 37.1% vs 17.7%; P < .0001). Compared with ECMO alone, ECMO with IABP patients had better survival at 180 days (log rank P = .005) whereas survival in ECMO with Impella patients was not different (log rank P = .66). In a multivariable Cox hazard analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.03; P = .015), male sex (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.80; P = .002), baseline lactate (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .004), baseline creatinine (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11; P = .032), need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.40-3.39; P = .001), and presence of pre-ECMO IABP (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.83; P = .010) were associated with reduced mortality. There was no significant difference in hemodynamic changes in the ECMO with IABP versus ECMO with Impella cohorts.ConclusionsConcomitant support with IABP might help reduce morbidity and improve 180-day survival in patients receiving VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock.

Dataset Information

Extracorporeal life support with left ventricular decompression-improved survival in severe cardiogenic shock: results from a retrospective study.

Publications

Extracorporeal life support with left ventricular decompression-improved survival in severe cardiogenic shock: results from a retrospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets