Abdulrahman A Al-Fares1,2,3, Varinder K Randhawa4, Marina Englesakis5, Michael A McDonald6, A Dave Nagpal7, Jerry D Estep4, Edward G Soltesz8, Eddy Fan1,2. 1. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine (A.A.A.-F., E.F.), Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. 2. Extracorporeal Life Support Program (A.A.A.-F., E.F.), Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Al-Amiri Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait (A.A.A.-F.). 4. Departments of Cardiovascular Medicine (V.K.R., J.D.E.), Kaufman Center for Heart Failure, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. 5. Library and Information Services (M.E.), Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Division of Cardiology, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre (M.A.M.), Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Divisions of Cardiac Surgery and Critical Care, London Health Sciences Center, ON, Canada (A.D.N.). 8. Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (E.G.S.), Kaufman Center for Heart Failure, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) is widely used to treat refractory cardiogenic shock. However, increased left ventricular (LV) afterload in VA-ECLS can worsen pulmonary congestion and compromise myocardial recovery. Our objectives were to explore the efficacy, safety, and optimal timing of adjunctive LV venting strategies. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, CDSR, CCRCT, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception until January 2019 for all relevant studies, including LV venting. Data were analyzed for mortality and weaning from VA-ECLS on the basis of timing of LV venting, along with adverse complications. RESULTS: A total of 7995 patients were included from 62 observational studies, wherein 3458 patients had LV venting during VA-ECLS. LV venting significantly improved weaning from VA-ECLS (odds ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.83]; P=0.001) and reduced short-term (30 day; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.77-0.96]; P=0.008) but not in-hospital (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.01] P=0.09) or long-term (6 months; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.03]; P=0.27) mortality. Early (<12 hours; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-0.99]; P=0.03) but not late (≥12 hours; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.71-1.38]; P=0.93) LV venting significantly reduced short-term mortality. Patients with LV venting spent more time on VA-ECLS (3.6 versus 2.8 days, P<0.001), and mechanical ventilation (7.1 versus 4.6 days, P=0.013). With the exception of hemolysis (RR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.58-3.01]; P<0.00001), overall adverse events did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: LV venting, especially if done early (<12 hours), appears to be associated with an increased success of weaning and reduced short-term mortality. Future studies are required to delineate the importance of any or early LV venting adjuncts on mortality and morbidity outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) is widely used to treat refractory cardiogenic shock. However, increased left ventricular (LV) afterload in VA-ECLS can worsen pulmonary congestion and compromise myocardial recovery. Our objectives were to explore the efficacy, safety, and optimal timing of adjunctive LV venting strategies. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, CDSR, CCRCT, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception until January 2019 for all relevant studies, including LV venting. Data were analyzed for mortality and weaning from VA-ECLS on the basis of timing of LV venting, along with adverse complications. RESULTS: A total of 7995 patients were included from 62 observational studies, wherein 3458 patients had LV venting during VA-ECLS. LV venting significantly improved weaning from VA-ECLS (odds ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.83]; P=0.001) and reduced short-term (30 day; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.77-0.96]; P=0.008) but not in-hospital (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.01] P=0.09) or long-term (6 months; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.03]; P=0.27) mortality. Early (<12 hours; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-0.99]; P=0.03) but not late (≥12 hours; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.71-1.38]; P=0.93) LV venting significantly reduced short-term mortality. Patients with LV venting spent more time on VA-ECLS (3.6 versus 2.8 days, P<0.001), and mechanical ventilation (7.1 versus 4.6 days, P=0.013). With the exception of hemolysis (RR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.58-3.01]; P<0.00001), overall adverse events did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: LV venting, especially if done early (<12 hours), appears to be associated with an increased success of weaning and reduced short-term mortality. Future studies are required to delineate the importance of any or early LV venting adjuncts on mortality and morbidity outcomes.
Authors: Alastair G Proudfoot; Antonis Kalakoutas; Susanna Meade; Mark J D Griffiths; Mir Basir; Francesco Burzotta; Sharon Chih; Eddy Fan; Jonathan Haft; Nasrien Ibrahim; Natalie Kruit; Hoong Sern Lim; David A Morrow; Jun Nakata; Susanna Price; Carolyn Rosner; Robert Roswell; Mark A Samaan; Marc D Samsky; Holger Thiele; Alexander G Truesdell; Sean van Diepen; Michelle Doughty Voeltz; Peter M Irving Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Enzo Lüsebrink; Leonhard Binzenhöfer; Antonia Kellnar; Christoph Müller; Clemens Scherer; Benedikt Schrage; Dominik Joskowiak; Tobias Petzold; Daniel Braun; Stefan Brunner; Sven Peterss; Jörg Hausleiter; Sebastian Zimmer; Frank Born; Dirk Westermann; Holger Thiele; Andreas Schäfer; Christian Hagl; Steffen Massberg; Martin Orban Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 6.138
Authors: Patrick T Hussey; Gregory von Mering; Navin C Nanda; Mustafa I Ahmed; Dylan R Addis Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 1.874
Authors: Fabiana G Marcondes-Braga; Lídia Ana Zytynski Moura; Victor Sarli Issa; Jefferson Luis Vieira; Luis Eduardo Rohde; Marcus Vinícius Simões; Miguel Morita Fernandes-Silva; Salvador Rassi; Silvia Marinho Martins Alves; Denilson Campos de Albuquerque; Dirceu Rodrigues de Almeida; Edimar Alcides Bocchi; Felix José Alvarez Ramires; Fernando Bacal; João Manoel Rossi Neto; Luiz Claudio Danzmann; Marcelo Westerlund Montera; Mucio Tavares de Oliveira Junior; Nadine Clausell; Odilson Marcos Silvestre; Reinaldo Bulgarelli Bestetti; Sabrina Bernadez-Pereira; Aguinaldo F Freitas; Andréia Biolo; Antonio Carlos Pereira Barretto; Antônio José Lagoeiro Jorge; Bruno Biselli; Carlos Eduardo Lucena Montenegro; Edval Gomes Dos Santos Júnior; Estêvão Lanna Figueiredo; Fábio Fernandes; Fabio Serra Silveira; Fernando Antibas Atik; Flávio de Souza Brito; Germano Emílio Conceição Souza; Gustavo Calado de Aguiar Ribeiro; Humberto Villacorta; João David de Souza Neto; Livia Adams Goldraich; Luís Beck-da-Silva; Manoel Fernandes Canesin; Marcelo Imbroinise Bittencourt; Marcely Gimenes Bonatto; Maria da Consolação Vieira Moreira; Mônica Samuel Avila; Otavio Rizzi Coelho Filho; Pedro Vellosa Schwartzmann; Ricardo Mourilhe-Rocha; Sandrigo Mangini; Silvia Moreira Ayub Ferreira; José Albuquerque de Figueiredo Neto; Evandro Tinoco Mesquita Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Dylan R Addis; Bo Wang; Shane P Prejean; Thomas Evans Watts; Navin C Nanda; Mustafa I Ahmed Journal: Echocardiography Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 1.724
Authors: Mariusz Kowalewski; Kamil Zieliński; Daniel Brodie; Graeme MacLaren; Glenn Whitman; Giuseppe M Raffa; Udo Boeken; Kiran Shekar; Yih-Sharng Chen; Christian Bermudez; David D'Alessandro; Xiaotong Hou; Jonathan Haft; Jan Belohlavek; Inga Dziembowska; Piotr Suwalski; Peta Alexander; Ryan P Barbaro; Mario Gaudino; Michele Di Mauro; Jos Maessen; Roberto Lorusso Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 9.296