Laura M Piechura1,2, Antonio Coppolino2, Gita N Mody3, Daniel E Rinewalt1, Mohammed Keshk1,2, Mitsugu Ogawa1, Raghu Seethala4, Erin A Bohula5, David A Morrow5, Steve K Singh6, Hari R Mallidi1,2, Steven P Keller7,8. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Division of Emergency Critical Care Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Regional Cardiac Health Program, Trillium Health Partners, Ontario, Mississauga, Canada. 7. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving technology capable of restoring perfusion but is not without significant complications that limit its realizable therapeutic benefit. ECMO-induced hemodynamics increase cardiac afterload risking left ventricular distention and impaired cardiac recovery. To mitigate potentially harmful effects, multiple strategies to unload the left ventricle (LV) are used in clinical practice but data supporting the optimal approach is presently lacking. MATERIALS & METHODS: We reviewed outcomes of our ECMO population from September 2015 through January 2019 to determine if our LV unloading strategies were associated with patient outcomes. We compared reactive (Group 1, n = 30) versus immediate (Group 2, n = 33) LV unloading and then compared patients unloaded with an Impella CP (n = 19) versus an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP, n = 16), analyzing survival and ECMO-related complications. RESULTS: Survival was similar between Groups 1 and 2 (33 vs 42%, P = .426) with Group 2 experiencing more clinically-significant hemorrhage (40 vs. 67%, P = .034). Survival and ECMO-related complications were similar between patients unloaded with an Impella versus an IABP. However, the Impella group exhibited a higher rate of survival (37%) than predicted by their median SAVE score (18%). DISCUSSION: Based on this analysis, reactive unloading appears to be a viable strategy while venting with the Impella CP provides better than anticipated survival. Our findings correlate with recent large cohort studies and motivate further work to design clinical guidelines and future trial design.
INTRODUCTION: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving technology capable of restoring perfusion but is not without significant complications that limit its realizable therapeutic benefit. ECMO-induced hemodynamics increase cardiac afterload risking left ventricular distention and impaired cardiac recovery. To mitigate potentially harmful effects, multiple strategies to unload the left ventricle (LV) are used in clinical practice but data supporting the optimal approach is presently lacking. MATERIALS & METHODS: We reviewed outcomes of our ECMO population from September 2015 through January 2019 to determine if our LV unloading strategies were associated with patient outcomes. We compared reactive (Group 1, n = 30) versus immediate (Group 2, n = 33) LV unloading and then compared patients unloaded with an Impella CP (n = 19) versus an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP, n = 16), analyzing survival and ECMO-related complications. RESULTS: Survival was similar between Groups 1 and 2 (33 vs 42%, P = .426) with Group 2 experiencing more clinically-significant hemorrhage (40 vs. 67%, P = .034). Survival and ECMO-related complications were similar between patients unloaded with an Impella versus an IABP. However, the Impella group exhibited a higher rate of survival (37%) than predicted by their median SAVE score (18%). DISCUSSION: Based on this analysis, reactive unloading appears to be a viable strategy while venting with the Impella CP provides better than anticipated survival. Our findings correlate with recent large cohort studies and motivate further work to design clinical guidelines and future trial design.
Authors: N Madershahian; J Wippermann; O Liakopoulos; T Wittwer; E Kuhn; F Er; U Hoppe; T Wahlers Journal: J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 1.888
Authors: Paolo Meani; Sandro Gelsomino; Eshan Natour; Daniel M Johnson; Hans-Peter Brunner La Rocca; Federico Pappalardo; Elham Bidar; Maged Makhoul; Giuseppe Raffa; Samuel Heuts; Pieter Lozekoot; Suzanne Kats; Niels Sluijpers; Rick Schreurs; Thijs Delnoij; Alice Montalti; Jan Willem Sels; Marcel van de Poll; Paul Roekaerts; Thomas Poels; Eric Korver; Zaheer Babar; Jos Maessen; Roberto Lorusso Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Paul Y Kwo; Parvez S Mantry; Eoin Coakley; Helen S Te; Hugo E Vargas; Robert Brown; Fredric Gordon; Josh Levitsky; Norah A Terrault; James R Burton; Wangang Xie; Carolyn Setze; Prajakta Badri; Tami Pilot-Matias; Regis A Vilchez; Xavier Forns Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Petr Ostadal; Mikulas Mlcek; Andreas Kruger; Pavel Hala; Stanislav Lacko; Martin Mates; Dagmar Vondrakova; Tomas Svoboda; Matej Hrachovina; Marek Janotka; Hana Psotova; Svitlana Strunina; Otomar Kittnar; Petr Neuzil Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2015-08-15 Impact factor: 5.531
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: 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