Literature DB >> 29183830

Improving cannulation time for extracorporeal life support in refractory cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause - Comparison of two percutaneous cannulation techniques in the catheterization laboratory in a center without on-site cardiovascular surgery.

Sebastian Voicu1, Patrick Henry2, Isabelle Malissin3, Jean-Guillaume Dillinger2, Anastasios Koumoulidis4, Nikos Magkoutis4, Demetris Yannopoulos5, Damien Logeart2, Stéphane Manzo-Silberman2, Nicolas Péron3, Nicolas Deye6, Bruno Megarbane3, Georgios Sideris2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) without return of spontaneous circulation can be treated with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vaECMO) implemented surgically or percutaneously. We performed a study assessing time for vaECMO percutaneous cannulation in the catheterization laboratory.
METHODS: Single-centre retrospective study in a University hospital without on-site cardiovascular surgery, including patients aged >18 receiving vaECMO for out- or in-hospital refractory CA of presumed cardiac cause between 2010 and 2016, cannulated by interventional cardiologists. Cannulation time using anatomic landmarks vessel puncture and conventional wires (first period) was compared with ultrasound guidance puncture and stiff wires (second period). Data are expressed as medians (interquartile range) and percentages.
RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included, age 56 (49-62), 34 in the first period. Shockable initial rhythm occurred in 29 (63%), 36 (78%) had ischemic heart disease and 26 (57%) acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Out-of-hospital refractory CA occurred in 27 (59%) patients. Time from out-of-hospital refractory CA to admission was 100 (80-118) min. Cannulation was successful in 42 (91%) patients. Cannulation time was 14 (10-21) min, 17 (12-26) (first) and 8 (6-12) min (second period), p<0.001. Survival to discharge was 9%. In out-of-hospital versus in-hospital, time from CA to vaECMO was 120 (115-140) versus 82 (58-102) min, p=0.011, survival was 7% (two patients) versus 11% (two patients), p=0.35 respectively. All survivors had shockable initial rhythm.
CONCLUSION: In these refractory CA patients with high prevalence of AMI and good feasibility of percutaneous vaECMO in the catheterization laboratory, cannulation time was shorter using ultrasound guidance and stiff wires.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29183830     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.11.057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  7 in total

Review 1.  Recommendations for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR): consensus statement of DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI and GRC.

Authors:  Guido Michels; Tobias Wengenmayer; Christian Hagl; Christian Dohmen; Bernd W Böttiger; Johann Bauersachs; Andreas Markewitz; Adrian Bauer; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Roman Pfister; Alexander Ghanem; Hans-Jörg Busch; Uwe Kreimeier; Andreas Beckmann; Matthias Fischer; Clemens Kill; Uwe Janssens; Stefan Kluge; Frank Born; Hans Martin Hoffmeister; Michael Preusch; Udo Boeken; Reimer Riessen; Holger Thiele
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  [Recommendations for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) : Consensus statement of DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI and GRC].

Authors:  G Michels; T Wengenmayer; C Hagl; C Dohmen; B W Böttiger; J Bauersachs; A Markewitz; A Bauer; J-T Gräsner; R Pfister; A Ghanem; H-J Busch; U Kreimeier; A Beckmann; M Fischer; C Kill; U Janssens; S Kluge; F Born; H M Hoffmeister; M Preusch; U Boeken; R Riessen; H Thiele
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 3.  [Recommendations for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) : Consensus statement of DGIIN, DGK, DGTHG, DGfK, DGNI, DGAI, DIVI and GRC].

Authors:  G Michels; T Wengenmayer; C Hagl; C Dohmen; B W Böttiger; J Bauersachs; A Markewitz; A Bauer; J-T Gräsner; R Pfister; A Ghanem; H-J Busch; U Kreimeier; A Beckmann; M Fischer; C Kill; U Janssens; S Kluge; F Born; H M Hoffmeister; M Preusch; U Boeken; R Riessen; H Thiele
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.041

4.  Percutaneous versus surgical femoro-femoral veno-arterial ECMO: a propensity score matched study.

Authors:  Pichoy Danial; David Hajage; Lee S Nguyen; Ciro Mastroianni; Pierre Demondion; Matthieu Schmidt; Adrien Bouglé; Julien Amour; Pascal Leprince; Alain Combes; Guillaume Lebreton
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 5.  Limb ischemia in peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a narrative review of incidence, prevention, monitoring, and treatment.

Authors:  Eleonora Bonicolini; Gennaro Martucci; Jorik Simons; Giuseppe M Raffa; Cristina Spina; Valeria Lo Coco; Antonio Arcadipane; Michele Pilato; Roberto Lorusso
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Feasibility of Pre-Hospital Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Non-Traumatic Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Authors:  Jostein Rødseth Brede; Thomas Lafrenz; Pål Klepstad; Eivinn Aardal Skjærseth; Trond Nordseth; Edmund Søvik; Andreas J Krüger
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 7.  A systematic review of current ECPR protocols. A step towards standardisation.

Authors:  't Joncke Koen; Thelinge Nathanaël; Dewolf Philippe
Journal:  Resusc Plus       Date:  2020-07-19
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.