OBJECTIVES: To report our center's experience using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vaECMO) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: In TAVI, short-term mortality closely relates to life threatening procedural complications. VaECMO can be used to stabilize the patient in emergency situations. However, for the prophylactic use of vaECMO in very high-risk patients undergoing TAVI there is no experience. METHODS: From January 2009 to August 2011, we performed 131 TAVI. Emergency vaECMO was required in 8 cases (7%): ventricular perforation (n = 3), hemodynamic instability/cardiogenic shock (n = 4), hemodynamic deterioration due to ventricular tachycardia (n = 1). Since August 2011, during 83 procedures, prophylactic vaECMO was systematically used in very high-risk patients (n = 9, 11%) and emergency ECMO in one case (1%) due to ventricular perforation. RESULTS: Median logistic EuroScore in prophylactic vaECMO patients was considerably higher as compared to the remaining TAVI population (30% vs. 15%, P = 0.0003) while in patients with emergency vaECMO it was comparable (18% vs. 15%, P = 0.08). Comparing prophylactic to emergency vaECMO, procedural success and 30-day mortality were 100% vs. 44% (P = 0.03) and 0% vs. 44% (P = 0.02), respectively. Major vascular complications and rate of life threatening bleeding did not differ between both groups (11% vs. 11%, P = 0.99 and 11% vs. 33%, P = 0.3) and were not vaECMO-related. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening complications during TAVI can be managed using emergency vaECMO but mortality remains high. The use of prophylactic vaECMO in very high-risk patients is safe and may be advocated in selected cases.
OBJECTIVES: To report our center's experience using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vaECMO) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). BACKGROUND: In TAVI, short-term mortality closely relates to life threatening procedural complications. VaECMO can be used to stabilize the patient in emergency situations. However, for the prophylactic use of vaECMO in very high-risk patients undergoing TAVI there is no experience. METHODS: From January 2009 to August 2011, we performed 131 TAVI. Emergency vaECMO was required in 8 cases (7%): ventricular perforation (n = 3), hemodynamic instability/cardiogenic shock (n = 4), hemodynamic deterioration due to ventricular tachycardia (n = 1). Since August 2011, during 83 procedures, prophylactic vaECMO was systematically used in very high-risk patients (n = 9, 11%) and emergency ECMO in one case (1%) due to ventricular perforation. RESULTS: Median logistic EuroScore in prophylactic vaECMOpatients was considerably higher as compared to the remaining TAVI population (30% vs. 15%, P = 0.0003) while in patients with emergency vaECMO it was comparable (18% vs. 15%, P = 0.08). Comparing prophylactic to emergency vaECMO, procedural success and 30-day mortality were 100% vs. 44% (P = 0.03) and 0% vs. 44% (P = 0.02), respectively. Major vascular complications and rate of life threatening bleeding did not differ between both groups (11% vs. 11%, P = 0.99 and 11% vs. 33%, P = 0.3) and were not vaECMO-related. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening complications during TAVI can be managed using emergency vaECMO but mortality remains high. The use of prophylactic vaECMO in very high-risk patients is safe and may be advocated in selected cases.
Authors: Peter Chiu; William F Fearon; Lindsay A Raleigh; Grayson Burdon; Vidya Rao; Jack H Boyd; Alan C Yeung; David Craig Miller; Michael P Fischbein Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2016-04-24 Impact factor: 1.620
Authors: Javier Castrodeza; Ana Mª Serrador Frutos; Ignacio J Amat-Santos; Inés Sayago Silva; José Alberto San Román Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2019 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Sri Harsha Patlolla; Harigopal Sandhyavenu; Saarwaani Vallabhajosyula; Gregory W Barsness; Shannon M Dunlay; Kevin L Greason; David R Holmes; Mackram F Eleid Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.501