Literature DB >> 34056134

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Rescue Therapy in Post-cardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock: A Case Report.

Mihai Stefan1, Ovidiu Stiru1, Ioana Marinica1, Mihail Luchian1, Alina Paunescu1, Alexandra Ciurciun1, Vlad Anton Iliescu1, Ovidiu Chioncel1, Serban Bubenek1, Daniela Filipescu1.   

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock is a constant challenge for the intensivist when complicating a myocardial infarction, due to the high rate of associated morbidity and mortality, especially in the setting of mechanical complications such as papillary muscle rupture. We present the case of a 49-year-old woman with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by severe mitral valve insufficiency due to papillary muscle rupture. She was treated initially by medical optimization, followed by mitral valve replacement and complete surgical revascularization, requiring rescue mechanical circulatory support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). ECMO proved to be a rescue therapy in a patient with refractory cardiogenic shock after urgent cardiac surgery.
© 2020 Mihai Stefan et al. published by Sciendo.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support

Year:  2020        PMID: 34056134      PMCID: PMC8158319          DOI: 10.2478/rjaic-2020-0019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care        ISSN: 2392-7518


Introduction

Refractory cardiogenic shock can be defined as ongoing evidence of tissue hypoperfusion despite administration of adequate doses of two vasoactive medications and treatment of the underlying etiology. It carries a hospital mortality as high as 50%.[1] Cardiopulmonary support with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been proved to be a useful tool in the management of shock syndromes.[2] In cardiac surgery, in the perioperative period, ECMO is rapidly evolving as a readily available tool for rescue therapy in rapidly deteriorating patients as it offers multi-organ support and can be placed in patients with left ventricular (LV), right ventricular (RV), or bi-ventricular failure.

Patient presentation and initial workup

A 49-year-old female was admitted directly to the intensive care unit (ICU) from another institution, after having suffered a silent myocardial infarction (MI), possibly in the previous 7 days, complicated by a papillary muscle rupture with severe mitral valve regurgitation. At admission, the patient was mechanically ventilated and showed signs of cardiogenic shock and organ dysfunction, i.e. cold, clammy skin, anuria with elevated serum creatinine, elevated serum lactate (6 mmol/l), and severe LV dysfunction (LV ejection fraction [LVEF] 30%), on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) examination. Standard monitoring was supplemented by an arterial line placed on the left radial artery and a pulmonary artery catheter via the right jugular vein.

Diagnosis and management

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) confirmed posterior papillary muscle rupture, with severe mitral regurgitation and severe LV dysfunction (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Initial workup was completed with a coronary angiography, which showed triple-vessel coronary artery disease. At this point, the institutional Heart Team (including a cardiologist, cardiovascular surgeon, and anesthesiologist) decided that, given the high mortality risk (Euroscore II 31.47%, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score 10), initial management should focus on stabilizing the patient, with surgery planned in the same hospitalization. An intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was inserted via the right femoral artery, and the patient was optimized by multimodal treatment, including inodilator therapy with levosimendan and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) with hemodiafiltration. Remission of cardiogenic shock occurred after 24 hours and renal function improved, allowing for surgical treatment on ICU day 5, while she was still on IABP. Although TTE showed no improvement of LV function, cardiac output measured by thermodilution increased from 2.1 to 2.4 l/min/m2. Figure 1 A triple coronary artery bypass graft (a left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery and two saphenous vein grafts to the obtuse marginal branch and right coronary artery) and mitral valve replacement (size 27 Sorin Bicarbon mechanical prosthesis) was performed. The procedure was done under cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), with modified ultrafiltration and hemoadsorption for cytokine removal. Despite complete revascularization, CPB weaning was difficult due to bi-ventricular dysfunction, but was achieved under high doses of inotropes and vasopressors (dobutamine 10 μg/kg/min and norepinephrine 0.5 μg/kg/min) and inhaled nitric oxide (NO) 20 ppm for RV failure. Postoperatively, the patient developed cardiogenic shock (cardiac index of 1.9 l/min/m2) that was refractory to high doses of vasoactive drugs (dobutamine, norepinephrine, and vasopressin), as well as inhaled NO and mechanical support with IABP. The need of an advanced mechanical circulatory support was decided 24 hours postoperatively. A veno-arterial ECMO was used via a left femoro-femoral approach, while maintaining the IABP for adequate LV unloading. The ECMO device (flow of 3.8–4 l/min) was in place for 9 days. While on ECMO, the patient had neither pump-related nor cannulation-related complications, and LV ejection was maintained under low-dose inotropes, with no signs of pulmonary congestion. No further organ dysfunction developed. Postoperatively, there was no need of CRRT. Weaning was undertaken using an ultrasound-guided protocol and IV inodilators (levosimendan) and was successful on postoperative day 10. The patient was extubated on postoperative day 12. The IABP was removed 2 days later. The TEE examination after weaning showed an LVEF of 40%, normal RV, and adequate mechanical mitral valve function. The patient was shifted to the ward on postoperative day 20 and discharged from the hospital 1 week later.

Discussion

International guidelines recommend emergency surgery in cases presenting with mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), although perioperative mortality is high.[3] The risk of mortality is even higher in cases admitted with preoperative cardiogenic shock.[4] Hemodynamic stabilization is based on afterload reduction and inotropic treatment plus diuretics.[3] In our patient, IABP was used for afterload reduction and levosimendan for both inotropy and afterload reduction. As the patient had anuria from the presentation, CRRT with hemodiafiltration aimed to control the fluid, electrolytic, and metabolic balance. This strategy resulted in a reduction of the regurgitant volume and increased cardiac output, allowing for optimization of the patient’s condition preoperatively. While not routinely recommended in cardiogenic shock,[5] IABP is indicated for circulatory support in mechanical complications of AMI.[3] Levosimendan has been advocated as a useful agent in both cardiogenic shock and for weaning of veno-arterial ECMO.[6] Unfortunately, the use in patients on CRRT has an unpredictable effect on the parent agent and its metabolites, and consequently on the hemodynamics. Despite the complete revascularization and replacement of insufficient valve, the patient developed postoperative cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional therapy. Using a stepwise approach, the next choice was to use ECMO as a rescue mechanical circulatory support and bridge to recovery. Compared to other short- and long-term circulatory assist devices, ECMO offers the advantage of both cardiac (bi-ventricular) and respiratory support.[7] Organ support was optimal, as documented by lack of new-organ dysfunction and normal serum lactate levels, and LV unloading was effective through the IABP[5] which was already in place. Cardiac function recovered slowly under ECMO, and weaning was uneventful after 9 days of circulatory support. An ultrasound-guided weaning strategy was used,[8] and the patient was discharged home in a good condition.

Conclusions

Mechanical complications of AMI associated with cardiogenic shock represent a challenging setting for the Heart Team. Mechanical circulatory support is needed both pre- and postoperatively, and a stepwise approach is recommended. ECMO as a rescue therapy in a patient with refractory cardiogenic shock after urgent cardiac surgery, already on IABP, inotropic, vasoconstrictor support, and inhaled NO proved to be successful.
  8 in total

Review 1.  Management of refractory cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Alex Reyentovich; Maya H Barghash; Judith S Hochman
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation.

Authors:  Borja Ibánez; Stefan James; Stefan Agewall; Manuel J Antunes; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Héctor Bueno; Alida L P Caforio; Filippo Crea; John A Goudevenos; Sigrun Halvorsen; Gerhard Hindricks; Adnan Kastrati; Mattie J Lenzen; Eva Prescott; Marco Roffi; Marco Valgimigli; Christoph Varenhorst; Pascal Vranckx; Petr Widimský
Journal:  Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed)       Date:  2017-12

3.  Weaning from veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation: which strategy to use?

Authors:  Sofia Ortuno; Clément Delmas; Jean-Luc Diehl; Clotilde Bailleul; Aymeric Lancelot; Mahassen Naili; Bernard Cholley; Romain Pirracchio; Nadia Aissaoui
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2019-01

4.  Outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ashley R Wilson-Smith; Yulia Bogdanova; Stephanie Roydhouse; Kevin Phan; David H Tian; Tristan D Yan; Antonio Loforte
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2019-01

5.  2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.

Authors:  Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 29.983

Review 6.  Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock: State of the Art.

Authors:  Ludhmila Abrahao Hajjar; Jean-Louis Teboul
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-03-09       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  Early Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Myocardial Revascularization for Acute Coronary Syndromes Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Report From the North-Rhine-Westphalia Surgical Myocardial Infarction Registry.

Authors:  Oliver J Liakopoulos; G Schlachtenberger; Daniel Wendt; Yeong-Hoon Choi; Ingo Slottosch; Henryk Welp; Wolfgang Schiller; Sven Martens; Armin Welz; Markus Neuhäuser; Heinz Jakob; Thorsten Wahlers; Matthias Thielmann
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 8.  Levosimendan in the light of the results of the recent randomized controlled trials: an expert opinion paper.

Authors:  Bernard Cholley; Bruno Levy; Jean-Luc Fellahi; Dan Longrois; Julien Amour; Alexandre Ouattara; Alexandre Mebazaa
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 9.097

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.