Extracorporeal Life Support In Cardiogenic Shock Research Articles

Outcomes of ECLS-SHOCK Eligibility Criteria Applied to a Real-World Cohort.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) exhibits high (~50%) in-hospital mortality. The recently published Extracorporeal life Support in Cardiogenic Shock (ECLS-SHOCK) trial demonstrated the neutral effects of the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) on all-cause death, as well as on all secondary outcomes in subjects presenting with myocardial-infarction (MI)-related CS. Here, we compared ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria with a real-world cohort of CS patients. ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria were applied to a prospective single-center CS registry (the PREPARE CS registry) consisting of 557 patients who were consecutively admitted to the catheterization laboratory (cath lab) of the Medical University of Graz, Austria, due to CS (SCAI C-E). Overall use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in this cohort was 19%. Sixty-nine percent of the entire cohort had MI-related CS, 38% of whom would have met ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria, thus representing only 27% of the PREPARE CS registry. Exclusion from the ECLS-SHOCK trial was based on patients with initial lactate values below 3 mmol/L (n = 168; 43.6%), aged over 80 years (n = 65; 16.9%), and with a duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) exceeding 45 min (n = 22; 5.7%). The 30-day mortality of patients of the PREPARE CS registry who met the ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria was 57.0%, compared to 48.4% of patients in the ECLS-SHOCK trial. The patients' baseline characteristics, however, differed considerably with respect to type of infarction, age, and gender. In a real-world cohort of patients with MI-related CS, only 38% of patients met the eligibility criteria of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Thus, the impact of the use of VA-ECMO on outcome parameters in MI-related CS, as observed in the ECLS-SHOCK trial, may differ in a more heterogeneous real-world CS population of the PREPARE CS registry.

MIRACLE2 Score Compared With Downtime and Current Selection Criterion for Invasive Cardiovascular Therapies After OHCA

BackgroundThe MIRACLE2 score is the only risk score that does not incorporate and can be used for selection of therapies after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the discrimination performance of the MIRACLE2 score, downtime, and current randomized controlled trial (RCT) recruitment criteria in predicting poor neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). MethodsWe used the EUCAR (European Cardiac Arrest Registry), a retrospective cohort from 6 centers (May 2012-September 2022). The primary outcome was poor neurologic outcome on hospital discharge (cerebral performance category 3-5). ResultsA total of 1,259 patients (total downtime = 25 minutes; IQR: 15-36 minutes) were included in the study. Poor outcome occurred in 41.8% with downtime <30 minutes and in 79.3% for those with downtime >30 minutes. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, MIRACLE2 had a stronger association with outcome (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.98-2.51; P < 0.0001) than zero flow (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; P = 0.013), low flow (OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.99-1.09; P = 0.054), and total downtime (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.95-1.03; P = 0.52). MIRACLE2 had substantially superior discrimination for the primary endpoint (AUC: 0.877; 95% CI: 0.854-0.897) than zero flow (AUC: 0.610; 95% CI: 0.577-0.642), low flow (AUC: 0.725; 95% CI: 0.695-0.754), and total downtime (AUC: 0.732; 95% CI: 0.701-0.760). For those modeled for exclusion from study recruitment, the positive predictive value of MIRACLE2 ≥5 for poor outcome was significantly higher (0.92) than the CULPRIT-SHOCK (Culprit lesion only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.80), EUROSHOCK (Testing the value of Novel Strategy and Its Cost Efficacy In Order to Improve the Poor Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock) (0.74) and ECLS-SHOCK (Extra-corporeal life support in Cardiogenic shock) criteria (0.81) (P < 0.001). ConclusionsThe MIRACLE2 score has superior prediction of outcome after OHCA than downtime and higher discrimination of poor outcome than the current RCT recruitment criteria. The potential for the MIRACLE2 score to improve the selection of OHCA patients should be evaluated formally in future RCTs.

Outcomes following successful decannulation from extracorporeal life support for cardiogenic shock

ObjectiveAlthough extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has increasingly been used for the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), the outcomes of those successfully weaned from support remain poorly defined. MethodsOf 510 venoarterial ECLS CS patients at our institution between January 2015 and December 2020, 249 were decannulated and survived for 30 days or until discharge (ie, successfully weaned). Factors associated with survival to discharge were assessed and 1-year survival was described. ResultsOf 510 eligible CS ECLS patients, 249 (48.8%) were successfully decannulated, 227 (44.5%) died during/following ECLS, and 34 (6.7%) were bridged to heart transplantation or a ventricular assist device. Patients with a primary graft dysfunction etiology of CS had a greater chance of successful decannulation (odds ratio [OR], 3.088; 95% CI, 1.1-8.671; P = .0323), whereas patients with ECLS during cardiopulmonary resuscitation had a reduced chance of successful decannulation (OR, 0.354; 95% CI, 0.17-0.735; P = .0054). Of successfully decannulated patients, 218 (87.6%) survived to hospital discharge and 31 (12.4%) died in the hospital. Acute myocardial infarction etiology (OR, 4.751; 95% CI, 1.623-13.902; P = .0044), preexisting chronic kidney disease (OR, 3.422; 95% CI, 1.374-8.52; P = .0082), and initiation of continuous renal replacement therapies (OR, 3.188; 95% CI, 1.291-7.871; P = .012) were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality despite successful decannulation. One-year survival in successfully decannulated patients surviving to hospital discharge was 95.0% and comparable to 1-year survival in patients who received a heart transplant or ventricular assist device. ConclusionsSuccessful decannulation can be achieved in a significant proportion of patients treated with ECLS for CS but does not guarantee survival to hospital discharge. However, 1-year survival of hospital survivors remains high and is comparable to patients bridged to transplant or a ventricular assist device.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), also known as extracorporeal life support (ECLS), can both be used to treat patients with acute pulmonary or cardiovascular failure. This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed on the topics of cardiogenic shock and acute pulmonary failure, also known as the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), as well as on ECMO. Attention was given chiefly to randomized, controlled trials and guidelines. Initial findings from prospective, randomized trials of VV-ECMO are now available. Trials of ECLS therapy are now in progress or planned. A meta-analysis of two randomized, controlled trials of VV-ECMO for ARDS revealed more frequent survival 90 days after randomization among patients treated with VV-ECMO, compared to the control groups (36% vs. 48%; RR = 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.6; 0.94]). For selected patients, after evaluation of the benefit-risk profile, VV-ECMO is a good treatment method for severe pulmonary failure, and ECLS for cardiogenic shock and resuscitation. The goal is to secure the circulation so that native heart function can be stabilized in the patient's further course or a permanent left-heart support system can be implanted, or else to support lung function until recovery. ECMO is a valid option in selected patients when conservative treatment has failed.

Utilization of Extracorporeal Life Support: A 6-Year Single-Centre Experience

<h3>Purpose</h3> The use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has increased worldwide over the past years due to improved technology, ease of management, growing familiarity with its capability and decreased costs. We analysed use and outcomes of ECLS at our Centre. <h3>Methods</h3> A retrospective cohort study of adults treated with ECLS for cardiogenic shock between January 2015 and April 2021 in a large London teaching hospital. We investigated patient characteristics, indications, and management to determine factors affecting outcomes. <h3>Results</h3> 95 patients underwent VA-ECLS of whom 46 were post-cardiotomy (PC) VA-ECLS patients. The mean age of the total cohort of patients was 52.3 years (range, 17-79 years), and 66.3% were male. Indications for ECLS included post-cardiotomy (PC) in 46/95 (48.4%), (post MI in 15/95 (15.8%), myocarditis in 13/95 (13.7%), and other in 21/95 (22.1%). The median duration of ECLS support was 5 days (range (0 - 30 days), and 37/95 (38.9%) of patients survived to discharge. Pre-ECLS procedures in PC patients in cardiogenic shock were isolated CABG in 4/46 (8.70%), isolated valve surgery in 20/46 (43.5%), thoracic aorta surgery in 13/46 (28.3%), CABG + valve in 6/46 (13.0%) or other surgery in 3/46 (6.52%). 16/46 (34.8%) were redo procedures; 24/46 (52.2%) were elective, 11/46 (23.9%) were urgent and 11/46 (23.9%) were emergency procedures. The mean age of this subset was 55.5 years (range 19 -79 years), 28/46 (60.9%) were males and 6/46 (8.7%) had pre-existing CKD. The mean EUROSCORE-II was 16.75. The median duration of ECLS support was 5 days (range 0-24 days) and 11/46 (23.9%) survived to discharge. Survival in PC patients (23.9%)) was significantly worse than in non-cardiotomy patients (26/49 (53.1%); p=0.0036). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Our experience confirms satisfactory survival rates may be achieved in such a challenging ECLS setting. PC patients had lower survival rates. Strategies to improve the selection and outcomes of PC-ECLS patients are needed. Nevertheless, PC-ECLS remains a valuable resource for temporary cardiocirculatory and respiratory support in patients who would otherwise most likely die.

Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support in Heart Transplant and Ventricle Assist Device Centres. Meta-analysis.

AimsBecause reported mortality on veno‐arterial (V‐A) extracorporeal life support (ECLS) substantially varies between centres, the aim of the current analysis was to assess the outcomes between units performing heart transplantation and/or implanting ventricular assist device (HTx/VAD) vs. non‐HTx/VAD units in patients undergoing V‐A ECLS for cardiogenic shock.Methods and resultsSystematic search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE databases until 30 November 2019. Articles reporting in‐hospital/30‐day mortality and centre's HTx/VAD status were included. In‐hospital outcomes and long‐term survival were analysed in subgroup meta‐analysis. A total of 174 studies enrolling n = 13 308 patients were included with 20 series performed in non‐HTx/VAD centres (1016 patients, 7.8%). Majority of patients underwent V‐A ECLS for post‐cardiotomy shock (44.2%) and acute myocardial infarction (20.7%). Estimated overall in‐hospital mortality was 57.2% (54.9–59.4%). Mortality rates were higher in non‐HTx/VAD [65.5% (59.8–70.8%)] as compared with HTx/VAD centres [55.8% (53.3–58.2%)], P < 0.001. Estimated late survival was 61.8% (55.7–67.9%) without differences between non‐HTx/VAD and HTx/VAD centres: 66.5% (30.3–1.02%) vs. 61.7% (55.5–67.8%), respectively (P = 0.797). No differences were seen with respect to ECLS duration, limb complications, and reoperations for bleeding, kidney injury, and sepsis. Yet, weaning rates were higher in HTx/VAD vs. non‐HTx/VAD centres: 58.7% (56.2–61.1%) vs. 48.9% (42.0–55.9%), P = 0.010. Estimated rate of bridge to heart transplant was 6.6% (5.2–8.3%) with numerical, yet not statistically significant, difference between non‐HTx/VAD [2.7% (0.8–8.3%)] as compared with HTx/VAD [6.7% (5.3–8.6%)] (P = 0.131).ConclusionsSurvival after V‐A ECLS differed according to centre's HTx/VAD status. Potentially different risk profiles of patients must be taken account for before definite conclusions are drawn.

Abstract 19380: Synchronized Pulsatile Extracorporeal Life Support Preserves Left Ventricular Functions in Comparison With Continuous Extracorporeal Flow in Porcine Model of Cardiogenic Shock

Introduction: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used for the therapy of rapidly progressing or severe cardiogenic shock. However, it has been repeatedly shown that increased afterload associated with ECLS significantly deteriorates left ventricular (LV) performance. Recently, new ECG-synchronized pulsatile cardiac assist system was introduced that offers full circulatory support with increased diastolic and decreased systolic extracorporeal flow. The aim of the present study was to compare the parameters of LV function during standard continuous flow ECLS support and ECG-synchronized pulsatile flow ECLS in cardiogenic shock. Methods: Ten female swine (body weight 45 kg) underwent ECLS implantation under general anesthesia and artificial ventilation. Subsequently, acute cardiogenic shock with signs of tissue hypoperfusion was induced by global myocardial hypoxia. Hemodynamic and cardiac performance parameters were then measured at different levels of continuous or pulsatile ECLS flow (ranging from 1 L/min to 4 L/min) using arterial and venous catheters, a pulmonary artery catheter and a LV pressure-volume loop catheter. Results: Myocardial hypoxia resulted in a decline in mean (±SD) cardiac output to 2.3±1.2 L/min, systolic blood pressure to 61±7 mmHg and LV ejection fraction (EF) to 21±7%. Synchronized pulsatile flow was associated with significant reduction of LV end-systolic volume (ESV), increase in LV stroke volume (SV), and higher EF at all ECLS flow levels in comparison with continuous ECLS flow (Figure 1). At selected ECLS flow levels, pulsatile flow reduced also LV end-diastolic pressure (EDP), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and systolic pressure (SP) (Figure 1). Conclusion: Our results indicate that ECG-synchronized pulsatile ECLS flow preserves LV function in comparison with standard continuous-flow ECLS in cardiogenic shock.

293 * EXTRACORPOREAL LIFE SUPPORT FOR CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: INFLUENCE OF CONCOMITANT INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON COUNTERPULSATION

OBJECTIVES: Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) during extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for cardiogenic shock may improve pulsatility and coronary perfusion, thereby promoting recovery of cardiac function. However, the risks and benefits of IABP during ECLS in real clinical settings have not been evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the effect of IABP on the early outcome of ECLS for cardiogenic shock. METHODS: We evaluated 253 adult patients (aged 58.8 ± 15.3 [mean ± standard deviation] years, 154 males) undergoing ECLS for cardiogenic shock from January 2005 to August 2012. Of them, 60 patients underwent concomitant IABP (IABP group) and 193 underwent ECLS only (control group). In-hospital outcomes were compared using the inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores. RESULTS: The indications for ECLS were low cardiac output after cardiac surgery in 118 patients (46.6%), heart failure in 71 (28.1%), acute myocardial infarction in 49 (19.4%) and others in 15 (5.9%). Successful ECLS weaning rate was significantly higher in the IABP group than in the control group (61.7 vs 42.0%, P= 0.008); however, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (68.6 vs 72.0%, P= 0.58). After adjustment for propensity of treatment assignment conditional on baseline characteristics, the IABP group showed a decreased risk of weaning failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.92, P= 0.024) but with a similar risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.46–1.60; P= 0.62) compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IABP during ECLS increased a successful ECLS weaning rate, but was not translated into improved survival. Studies on larger populations may verify the survival effect of IABP during ECLS.