Project description:Prognosis for cardiogenic shock patients under ECMO was our study goal. Success defined as survived more than 7 days after ECMO installation and failure died or had multiple organ failure in 7 days. Total 34 cases were enrolled, 17 success and 17 failure. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected at ECMO installation were used analyzed.
Project description:Prognosis for cardiogenic shock patients under ECMO was our study goal. Success defined as survived more than 7 days after ECMO installation and failure died or had multiple organ failure in 7 days. Total 34 cases were enrolled, 17 success and 17 failure. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected at ECMO installation 0, 2 hours and removal were analyzed.
Project description:Prognosis for cardiogenic shock patients under ECMO was our study goal. Success defined as survived more than 7 days after ECMO installation and failure died or had multiple organ failure in 7 days. Total 34 cases were enrolled, 17 success and 17 failure. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected at ECMO installation 0hr, 2hr and removal were used analyzed.
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the outcomes of axillary artery (AX) and femoral artery (FA) cannulation for veno-arterial extracorporeal membraneous oxygenation (VA-ECMO).MethodsFrom 2009 to 2019, 371 patients who were supported with VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock were compared based on the arterial cannulation site: AX (n = 218) versus FA (n = 153).ResultsPatients in the AX group were older (61 years vs 58 years, P = .011), had a greater prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (13.8% vs 5.2%, P = .008), and were less likely to have undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation preoperatively (18.8% vs 36.6%, P < .001). Other characteristics were similar between groups, as were in-hospital outcomes, including survival to discharge (60.6% vs 56.9%), cerebrovascular accidents (12.4% vs 10.5%), cannulation-related bleeding (15.1% vs 17%), and length of VA-ECMO support (6 days). The incidence of leg ischemia (6.9% vs 15.7%, P = .006), limb ischemia related to VA-ECMO cannulation (0% vs 10.5%), the need to switch the cannulation site (4.6% vs 14.7%), and wound complications (WCs; 2.8% vs 15%) including infection and additional procedure were significantly greater in the FA group (P < .001). In multiple logistic regression analysis, FA cannulation and primary graft failure after heart transplantation were independent risk factors for cannulation-related WC. In subgroup analysis among patients with primary graft failure, WCs were more prevalent in FA cannulation (3.6% vs 39.1%, P = .001).ConclusionsAX cannulation for VA-ECMO is a safe and effective alternative to FA cannulation. It can be considered especially for patients with limited groin access, peripheral vascular disease, or for primary graft failure after heart transplant.
Project description:BackgroundThere has been increasing use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as bridge to heart transplant (orthotopic heart transplant [OHT]) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) over the last decade. We aimed to provide insights on the population, outcomes, and predictors for the selection of each therapy.MethodsUsing the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry between 2010 and 2019, we compared in-hospital mortality and length of stay, predictors of OHT versus LVAD, and predictors of in-hospital mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock that were bridged with ECMO to OHT or LVAD. One hundred sixty-seven patients underwent LVAD versus 234 patients who underwent OHT.ResultsThe overall use of ECMO has increased from 1.7% in 2010 to 22.2% in 2019. Mortality was similar between groups (LVAD: 28.7% versus OHT: 29.1%) while length of stay was longer for OHT (LVAD: 49.6 versus OHT: 59.5 days, P=0.05). Factors associated with OHT included prior transplant (odds ratio [OR]=31.26 [CI, 3.84-780.5]), use of a temporary pacemaker (OR=6.5 [CI, 1.39-50.15]), and increased use of inotropes on ECMO (OR=3.77 [CI, 1.39-11.07]), whereas LVAD use was associated with weight (OR=0.98 [CI, 0.97-0.99]), cardiogenic shock presentation (OR=0.40 [CI, 0.21-0.78]), previous LVAD (OR=0.01 [CI, 0.0001-0.22]), respiratory failure (OR=0.28 [CI, 0.11-0.70]), and milrinone infusion (OR=0.32 [CI, 0.15-0.67]). Older age (OR=1.07 [CI, 1.02-1.12]), cannulation bleeding (OR=26.1 [CI, 4.32-221.3]), and surgical bleeding (OR=6.7 [CI, 1.26-39.9]) in patients receiving LVAD and respiratory failure (OR=5 [CI, 1.17-23.1]) and continuous renal replacement therapy (OR=3.82 [CI, 1.28-11.9]) in patients receiving OHT were associated with increased mortality.ConclusionsECMO use as a bridge to advanced therapies has increased over time, with more patients undergoing LVAD than OHT. Mortality was equal between the 2 groups while length of stay was longer for OHT.
Project description:BackgroundStudies reporting long-term outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-treated coronary artery bypass grafting patients are scarce. The objective of this study was to examine the survival outcomes and identify mortality risk factors for coronary artery bypass grafting patients who received venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.MethodsData from 121 consecutive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-treated coronary artery bypass grafting patients at the Beijing Anzhen Hospital between January 2012 and December 2016 were analyzed. Multivariable Cox regression modeling was used to identify factors independently associated with 36-month mortality.ResultsSeventy-seven patients (64%) could be weaned from venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 56 patients (46%) survived to hospital discharge, and 41 patients (34%) survived to 36 months. Older age (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.10; p < 0.001), left main coronary artery disease (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.04-2.59; p < 0.001), and vasoactive inotropic score (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; p = 0.011) were independent risk factors associated with 36-month mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the logistic regression model, which was constructed with three pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation parameters-age ⩾ 60 years, left main coronary artery disease, and vasoactive inotropic score > 60-was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.94). Age and left main coronary artery disease significantly increased the discriminatory performance of Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score (0.79 vs. 0.91, p = 0.025).ConclusionsOlder age, left main coronary artery disease, and vasoactive inotropic score were associated with 36-month mortality in coronary artery bypass grafting patients who received venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Project description:Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides effective hemodynamic support in cardiogenic shock, but in some cases may be complicated by left ventricular (LV) distension and pulmonary edema. The Impella, a catheter-mounted microaxial pump has been used to unload the LV. Recent studies have compared the clinical outcomes of VA-ECMO to the combination of Impella and VA-ECMO. The purpose of this review is threefold: firstly, to discuss the physiological effects of Impella support in addition to VA-ECMO, secondly to review published studies on the outcome of this combined support, and thirdly to provide a practical overview of the approach to combining Impella and VA-ECMO.
Project description:Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation.
Project description:Background:Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality, despite new strategies for reperfusion therapy. Short-term circulatory support devices may provide adequate support for appropriate myocardial and organ perfusion. Objectives:This review is aimed at evaluating the impact on survival when using venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods:We performed a systematic review that included studies using V-A ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock. Time on ECMO, side effects, and the number of deceased patients, transplanted or upgraded to durable assist devices were analysed. Literature search was done using PubMed/MEDLINE (inception (1969) to January 10, 2019), ProQuest (inception (January 14, 1988) to January 10, 2019), and clinicaltrials.gov (inception (September 12, 2005) to January 10, 2019), by 2 authors. This protocol is registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42019123982). Results:We included 9 studies with a total of 1,998 adult patients receiving V-A ECMO for AMI-induced cardiogenic shock. Survival rate varied from 30.0% to 79.2% at discharge and from 23.2% to 36.1% at 12 months. Time on ECMO varied between 1.96 and 6.0 days. Reported serious adverse events were gastrointestinal bleeding (3.6%) and peripheral complications (8.5%). Conclusion:The use of V-A ECMO among patients with AMI-induced cardiogenic shock may provide survival benefits. However, V-A ECMO treatment effects are inconclusive because of limitations in cohort design and reporting.