OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal support of heart and lung function (venoarterial perfusion) during cardiac arrest (ECPR) has been advocated as a means of improving survival following cardiac arrest. The authors retrospectively reviewed their institution's seven-year experience with this intervention. METHODS: Emergency department patients and inpatients in cardiac arrest or immediately postarrest were considered candidates. ECPR was instituted using venoarterial bypass and was continued until patients regained sufficient cardiopulmonary function to allow weaning from the device or until their condition was deemed irrecoverable. RESULTS: ECPR was attempted in 25 patients and successfully instituted in 21. Four patients (16%) were converted from ECPR to ventricular assist devices, two of whom survived and await transplantation. Seven additional patients were discharged from the hospital, resulting in an overall survival of 36%. Because none of the children treated survived, there was a trend toward higher age among survivors (survivors 40 +/- 14 yr, nonsurvivors 33 +/- 15 yr, p = 0.29). The duration of conventional CPR was shorter among survivors (survivors 21 +/- 16 min, nonsurvivors 43 +/- 32 min, p = 0.04), as was the duration of extracorporeal support (survivors 44 +/- 21 hr, nonsurvivors 87 +/- 96 hr, p = 0.18). Survival was seen only in patients whose conditions were amenable to a definitive therapeutic intervention, particularly cardiac arrest due to respiratory or pulmonary embolic disease. While four of the five patients treated in the ED were successfully supported, none survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: In select patients with reversible disease, extracorporeal CPR can be used to successfully treat cardiac arrest. Further investigation into its most appropriate application is warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal support of heart and lung function (venoarterial perfusion) during cardiac arrest (ECPR) has been advocated as a means of improving survival following cardiac arrest. The authors retrospectively reviewed their institution's seven-year experience with this intervention. METHODS: Emergency department patients and inpatients in cardiac arrest or immediately postarrest were considered candidates. ECPR was instituted using venoarterial bypass and was continued until patients regained sufficient cardiopulmonary function to allow weaning from the device or until their condition was deemed irrecoverable. RESULTS: ECPR was attempted in 25 patients and successfully instituted in 21. Four patients (16%) were converted from ECPR to ventricular assist devices, two of whom survived and await transplantation. Seven additional patients were discharged from the hospital, resulting in an overall survival of 36%. Because none of the children treated survived, there was a trend toward higher age among survivors (survivors 40 +/- 14 yr, nonsurvivors 33 +/- 15 yr, p = 0.29). The duration of conventional CPR was shorter among survivors (survivors 21 +/- 16 min, nonsurvivors 43 +/- 32 min, p = 0.04), as was the duration of extracorporeal support (survivors 44 +/- 21 hr, nonsurvivors 87 +/- 96 hr, p = 0.18). Survival was seen only in patients whose conditions were amenable to a definitive therapeutic intervention, particularly cardiac arrest due to respiratory or pulmonary embolic disease. While four of the five patients treated in the ED were successfully supported, none survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: In select patients with reversible disease, extracorporeal CPR can be used to successfully treat cardiac arrest. Further investigation into its most appropriate application is warranted.
Authors: Joseph E Tonna; Nicholas J Johnson; John Greenwood; David F Gaieski; Zachary Shinar; Joseph M Bellezo; Lance Becker; Atman P Shah; Scott T Youngquist; Michael P Mallin; James Franklin Fair; Kyle J Gunnerson; Cindy Weng; Stephen McKellar Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 5.262