Patients treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have different baseline risk and outcomes dependent on indication and route of cannulation

Abstract

ObjectivesTo investigate the baseline risk of patients treated with Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in relation to cannulation strategy and indication for ECMO as well as the relation of cannulation strategy with survival and secondary hospitalization outcomes. MethodsSeverity of illness and predicted mortality risk were assessed in 317 patients. Central cannulation was used in 52 patients unable to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass after cardiac surgery. Peripheral cannulation was used in 179 patients for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) and in 86 patients who received ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS). ResultsAcute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores were significantly worse (P < 0.01) for peripheral ECMO eCPR (23.2) vs central ECMO (14.6) and vs peripheral ECMO for RCS (18.9). Survival After Venoarterial ECMO (SAVE) scores were significantly worse for peripheral ECMO for eCPR (−7.85) and RCS (−10.38) vs central ECMO (−3.97), and P < 0.01. Peripherally cannulated patients had significantly worse renal function. No significant difference existed for survival to discharge (peripheral ECMO for eCPR, 31%; central ECMO, 44%; peripheral ECMO for refractory cardiac shock, 39.5%; and P = 0.176), although centrally cannulated patients had significantly longer treatment durations compared with peripheral ECMO for eCPR. ConclusionsPeripherally cannulated patients with eCPR had significantly worse APACHE II and SAVE scores compared to peripherally cannulated RCS or patients with central ECMO, despite having similar mortality.