Abstract
The use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) devices has significantly increased in the last decades. Despite medical and technological advancements, a main challenge in the ECLS field remains the complex interaction between the human body, blood, and artificial materials. Indeed, blood exposure to artificial surfaces generates an unbalanced activation of the coagulation cascade, leading to hemorrhagic and thrombotic events. Over time, several anticoagulation and coatings methods have been introduced to address this problem. This narrative review summarizes trends, advantages, and disadvantages of anticoagulation and coating methods used in the ECLS field. Evidence was collected through a PubMed search and reference scanning. A group of experts was convened to openly discuss the retrieved references. Clinical practice in ECLS is still based on the large use of unfractionated heparin and, as an alternative in case of contraindications, nafamostat mesilate, bivalirudin, and argatroban. Other anticoagulation methods are under investigation, but none is about to enter the clinical routine. From an engineering point of view, material modifications have focused on commercially available biomimetic and biopassive surfaces and on the development of endothelialized surfaces. Biocompatible and bio-hybrid materials not requiring combined systemic anticoagulation should be the future goal, but intense efforts are still required to fulfill this purpose.
Highlights
Terms used for the search included ‘Extracorporeal Life Support’, ‘Anticoagulation’, ‘Heparin’, ‘Unfractionated heparin’, ‘Thrombin inhibitors’, ‘Hirudin’, ‘Nafamostat Mesi-Membranes 2021, 11, 617
Used anticoagulation agents can be divided into three groups: heparin group, nafamostat group, and direct thrombin inhibitors
Since the first successful extracorporeal life support (ECLS) application, technological and medical progress has led to a wide application of ECLS devices with improved patient outcomes
Summary
Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) devices are used for cardiac or/and pulmonary support as a bridge to recovery, bridge to surgery or treatment, to decision, or to transplant in the presence of cardio-circulatory or respiratory refractory compromise. Hospital survival of adult patients undergoing ECLS for respiratory support is reported to be 69%. While survival in cardio-circulatory support is 59% [1]. The effects of ECLS assistance, are not consistently positive. Compared to cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB), ECLS devices provide support for several days or weeks. Blood is exposed to the artificial tubing and membrane surfaces for a long time, leading to activation of the patient’s inflammatory response and coagulation [2]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.