Tobias Wengenmayer1,2, Daniel Duerschmied1,2, Erika Graf3, Marco Chiabudini3, Christoph Benk4, Sven Mühlschlegel1, Alois Philipp5, Matthias Lubnow6, Christoph Bode1,2, Dawid Leander Staudacher1,2. 1. 1 Department of Medicine III (Interdisciplinary Medical Intensive Care), University of Freiburg, Germany. 2. 2 Department of Cardiology and Angiology I, Heart Center Freiburg University, Germany. 3. 3 Institute for Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Freiburg, Germany. 4. 4 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Freiburg, Germany. 5. 5 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Germany. 6. 6 Department of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Regensburg, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: Several scoring systems have been introduced for prognostication after initiating venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) therapy. However, static scores offer limited guidance once VA-ECMO is implanted, although continued allocation of healthcare resources is critical. Patients requiring continued VA-ECMO support are extremely unstable, with minimal heart function and multi-organ failure in most cases. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a dynamic prognostic model for patients treated with VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: A derivation cohort included 205 all-comers undergoing VA-ECMO implantation at a tertiary referral hospital (51% received VA-ECMO during resuscitation and 43% had severe shock). Two prediction models based on point-of-care biomarkers were developed using penalised logistic regression in an elastic net approach. A validation cohort was recruited from an independent tertiary referral hospital. Comparators for the prediction of hospital survival were the SAVE score (area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.686), the SAPS score (AUC 0.679), the APACHE score (AUC 0.662) and the SOFA score (AUC 0.732) in 6-hour survivors. The 6-hour PREDICT VA-ECMO score (based on lactate, pH and standard bicarbonate concentration) outperformed the comparator scores with an AUC of 0.823. The 12-hour PREDICT VA-ECMO integrated lactate, pH and standard bicarbonate concentration at 1 hour, 6 hours and 12 hours after ECMO insertion allowed even better prognostication (AUC 0.839). Performance of the scores in the external validation cohort was good (AUCs 0.718 for the 6-hour score and 0.735 for the 12-hour score, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients requiring VA-ECMO therapy, a dynamic score using three point-of-care biomarkers predicts hospital mortality with high reliability. Furthermore, the PREDICT scores are the first scores for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients.
AIMS: Several scoring systems have been introduced for prognostication after initiating venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) therapy. However, static scores offer limited guidance once VA-ECMO is implanted, although continued allocation of healthcare resources is critical. Patients requiring continued VA-ECMO support are extremely unstable, with minimal heart function and multi-organ failure in most cases. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate a dynamic prognostic model for patients treated with VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: A derivation cohort included 205 all-comers undergoing VA-ECMO implantation at a tertiary referral hospital (51% received VA-ECMO during resuscitation and 43% had severe shock). Two prediction models based on point-of-care biomarkers were developed using penalised logistic regression in an elastic net approach. A validation cohort was recruited from an independent tertiary referral hospital. Comparators for the prediction of hospital survival were the SAVE score (area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.686), the SAPS score (AUC 0.679), the APACHE score (AUC 0.662) and the SOFA score (AUC 0.732) in 6-hour survivors. The 6-hour PREDICT VA-ECMO score (based on lactate, pH and standard bicarbonate concentration) outperformed the comparator scores with an AUC of 0.823. The 12-hour PREDICT VA-ECMO integrated lactate, pH and standard bicarbonate concentration at 1 hour, 6 hours and 12 hours after ECMO insertion allowed even better prognostication (AUC 0.839). Performance of the scores in the external validation cohort was good (AUCs 0.718 for the 6-hour score and 0.735 for the 12-hour score, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients requiring VA-ECMO therapy, a dynamic score using three point-of-care biomarkers predicts hospital mortality with high reliability. Furthermore, the PREDICT scores are the first scores for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients.
Authors: Nawfel Ben-Hamouda; Zied Ltaief; Matthias Kirsch; Jan Novy; Lucas Liaudet; Mauro Oddo; Andrea O Rossetti Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: D Duerschmied; V Zotzmann; M Rieder; X Bemtgen; P M Biever; K Kaier; G Trummer; C Benk; H J Busch; C Bode; T Wengenmayer; P Stachon; C von Zur Mühlen; D L Staudacher Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Faizan Amin; Julia Lombardi; Mosaad Alhussein; Juan Duero Posada; Adrian Suszko; Margaret Koo; Eddy Fan; Heather Ross; Vivek Rao; Ana Carolina Alba; Filio Billia Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-09-16
Authors: Jonathan Rilinger; Antonia M Riefler; Xavier Bemtgen; Markus Jäckel; Viviane Zotzmann; Paul M Biever; Daniel Duerschmied; Christoph Benk; Georg Trummer; Klaus Kaier; Christoph Bode; Dawid L Staudacher; Tobias Wengenmayer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Marinos Kosmopoulos; Henri Roukoz; Pierre Sebastian; Rajat Kalra; Tomaz Goslar; Jason A Bartos; Demetris Yannopoulos; David G Benditt Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-08-08 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Xavier Bemtgen; Jonathan Rilinger; Markus Jäckel; Viviane Zotzmann; Alexander Supady; Christoph Benk; Christoph Bode; Tobias Wengenmayer; Achim Lother; Dawid L Staudacher Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.460