Search

Abstract Aims Because reported mortality on veno‐arterial (V‐A) extracorporeal life support (ECLS) substantially varies between centres, the aim of the current analysis was to assess the outcomes between units performing heart transplantation and/or implanting ventricular assist device (HTx/VAD) vs. non‐HTx/VAD units in patients undergoing V‐A ECLS for cardiogenic shock. Methods and results Systematic search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE databases until 30 November 2019. Articles reporting in‐hospital/30‐day mortality and centre's HTx/VAD status were included. In‐hospital outcomes and long‐term survival were analysed in subgroup meta‐analysis. A total of 174 studies enrolling n = 13 308 patients were included with 20 series performed in non‐HTx/VAD centres (1016 patients, 7.8%). Majority of patients underwent V‐A ECLS for post‐cardiotomy shock (44.2%) and acute myocardial infarction (20.7%). Estimated overall in‐hospital mortality was 57.2% (54.9–59.4%). Mortality rates were higher in non‐HTx/VAD [65.5% (59.8–70.8%)] as compared with HTx/VAD centres [55.8% (53.3–58.2%)], P

Abstract Background Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS) that is refractory to inotropic support remains a major concern in cardiac surgery and is almost universally fatal unless treated with mechanical support. While reported mortality rates on ECMO vary from center to center, aim of the current report is assess if the outcomes differ between centres according to volume and heart transplantation status. Methods A systematic search was performed according to PRISMA statement using PubMed/Medline databases between 2010 and 2018. Relevant articles were scrutinized and included in the meta-analysis only if reporting in-hospital/30-day mortality and heart transplantation status of the centre. Paediatric and congenital heart surgery-related studies along with those conducted in the setting of veno-venous ECMO for respiratory distress syndrome were excluded. Differences were assessed by means of subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. Results Fifty-four studies enrolling N = 4421 ECMO patients were included. Of those, 6 series were performed in non-HTx centres (204 pts.;4.6%). Overall 30-day survival (95% Confidence Intervals) was 35.3% (32.5–38.2%) and did not statistically differ between non-HTx: 33.3% (26.8–40.4%) and HTx centres: 35.7% (32.7–38.8%); Pinteraction = 0.531. There was no impact of centre volume on survival as well: ßcoef = 0.0006; P = 0.833. No statistical differences were seen between HTx and non-HTx with respect to ECMO duration, limb complications, reoperations for bleeding, kidney injury and sepsis. There were however significantly less neurological complications in the HTx as compared to non-HTx centres: 11.9% vs 19.5% respectively; P = 0.009; an inverse relationship was seen for neurologic complications in centres performing more ECMOs annually ßcoef = − 0.0066; P = 0.031. Weaning rates and bridging to HTx and/or VADs were higher in HTx facilities. Conclusions There was no apparent difference in survival after ECMO implantation for refractory PCS according to centre’s ECMO volume and transplantation status. Potentially different risk profiles of patients in these centres must be taken account for before definite conclusions are drawn.