Search

Background: Refractory end-stage pulmonary failure may benefit from extracorporeal life support (ECLS) as a bridge to lung transplantation. Veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been recommended for patients who have failed conventional medical therapy and mechanical ventilation. Veno-arterial (VA) ECMO may be used in patients with acute right ventricular (RV) failure, haemodynamic instability, or refractory respiratory failure. Peripheral percutaneous approaches, either dual-site single-lumen cannulation for veno-pulmonary (VP) ECMO or single-site dual-lumen (dl)VP ECMO, using the ProtekDuo right ventricular assist device (RVAD) cannula, has made this configuration a desirable option as a bridge to transplantation. These configurations support the right ventricle, prevent recirculation by placing the tricuspid and pulmonary valve between the drainage and return cannulas, provide the direct introduction of oxygenated blood into the pulmonary artery, and have been shown to decrease the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in certain disease states. This promotes haemodynamic stability, potential sedation-weaning trials, extubation, mobilisation, and pre-transplant rehabilitation. Methods: A web-based literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was undertaken based on a combination of keywords. The PICOS and PRISMA approaches were used. Results: Four case series were identified out of 323 articles, with a total of 34 patients placed on VP ECMO as a bridge to lung transplantation. All relevant data are reviewed and integrated into the Discussion. Conclusions: Despite the limited available evidence, the use of ProtekDuo has become very promising for the management of end-stage lung disease as a bridge to lung transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a clinical challenge associated with various underlying acute and chronic medical conditions, necessitating diverse management strategies including mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The ProtekDuo cannula represents an important advancement in medical devices for MCS in the setting of RVF. When combined with an extracorporeal blood pump, the dual-lumen design allows for direct bypass of the RV using simultaneous drainage and return of blood using percutaneous, single-site access. Studies have reported favorable outcomes with the ProtekDuo cannula and low device-related complications, but comparative studies with other MCS devices are limited. Still, the ProtekDuo cannula has numerous advantages; however, it is not without challenges, and opportunities for further research exist. The ProtekDuo cannula holds significant potential for future advancements in the field of MCS, offering promising solutions for RVF management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-risk/massive pulmonary embolism (PE) has a high mortality rate, especially when cardiac arrest occurs. Venoarterial (V-A) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can rapidly restore and maintain circulation while a decision regarding further care or performance of other interventions takes place. Catheter-based embolectomy (CBE) is a technology that allows for percutaneous access, clot removal, and potential resolution of shock while avoiding sternotomy required for traditional pulmonary embolectomy. Rapid placement of V-A ECMO in patients with high-risk/massive PE prior to CBE may confer circulatory protection before, during, and after the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in interventional cardiac procedures (ICPs). It highlights the increased complexity of these procedures and the need for cardiac and respiratory support in severe cases. The article presents case reports that demonstrate the use of ECMO in supporting patients during ICPs, but also emphasizes the need for further research to guide clinical practice. The document provides a compilation of references to studies and guidelines related to the use of ECMO in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, which may be useful for library patrons conducting research on this topic. Additionally, it provides information about an open access journal called Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia and includes a link to access a specific article on ECMO in interventional cardiac procedures. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) remains a life-threatening complication after cardiac surgery. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents the mainstay of mechanical circulatory support for PCCS; however, its availability is limited to larger experienced centers, leading to a mismatch between centers performing cardiac surgery and hospitals offering ECMO management beyond cannulation. We sought to evaluate the outcomes and complications of PCCS patients requiring veno-arterial (V-A) ECMO cannulated at our hospital compared to those cannulated at referral hospitals. Methods: A retrospective analysis of PCCS patients requiring V-A ECMO was conducted between October 2014 to December 2022. Results: A total of 121 PCCS patients required V-A ECMO support, of which 62 (51%) patients were cannulated at the referring institutions and retrieved (retrieved group), and 59 (49%) were cannulated at our hospital (on-site group). The baseline demographics and pre-ECMO variables were similar between groups, except retrieved patients had higher lactic acid levels (retrieved group: 8.5 mmol/L ± 5.8 vs. on-site group: 6.6 ± 5; p = 0.04). Coronary artery bypass graft was the most common surgical intervention (51% in the retrieved group vs. 47% in the on-site group). There was no difference in survival-to-discharge rates between the groups (45% in the retrieved group vs. 51% in the on-site group; p = 0.53) or in the rate of patient-related complications. Conclusions: PCCS patients retrieved on V-A ECMO can achieve similar outcomes as those cannulated at experienced centers. An established network in a hub-and-spoke model is critical for the PCCS patients managed at hospitals without ECMO abilities to improve outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Use of the ProtekDuo cannula has been described for right ventricular assist devices (RVADs) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) systems. Case Report: We describe remote cannulation and transport of two patients with ProtekDuo cannula. One patient had isolated acute right ventricular failure (aRVF), was cannulated with ProtekDuo cannula in venopulmonary (V-P) configuration and transported by ambulance. Another patient had biventricular failure after myocardial infarction, was supported with ProtekDuo and Impella CP in PROpella configuration, and transported by helicopter. Discussion: We appear to be the first group to report remote cannulation using the ProtekDuo cannula followed by ambulance and helicopter transport, which were performed without complication. We describe the pros and cons of these configurations in comparison to the gold standard of shock management with venoarterial ECMO, as well as important considerations for transport. Conclusion: Use of the ProtekDuo cannula for remote cannulations and transport is feasible and appears safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes a case study where a patient with ProtekDuo + oxygenator and Impella CP (PROpella) in biventricular failure and cardiogenic shock was reconfigured to venopulmonary-arterial (VP-A) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), secondary to leg ischemia. The ProtekDuo was subsequently used as double-lumen drainage cannula, returning blood into a newly percutaneously placed femoral arterial cannula, mimicking venoarterial (V-A) ECMO in VP-A configuration. The following day, an Impella 5.5 could be placed and the ProtekDuo was reconfigured back to its default venopulmonary (V-P) ECMO configuration, now again as PROpella with minimally invasive biventricular groin-free full mechanical circulatory support. However, while in VP-A, good drainage blood flows of up to 4.5 LPM could be achieved similar to the ProtekDuo forward flow. None of the lumens collapsed secondary to negative pressure in the system. Drainage through the ProtekDuo for VP-A ECMO is feasible and without complications for a 24-hour period. This new method extends the ProtekDuo's spectrum of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Acute right ventricular failure (aRVF) is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be considered as an advanced treatment option. The ProtekDuo is a cannula that can be used to provide acute right ventricular support as part of a temporary percutaneous (tp) right ventricular assist device (RVAD) system. The primary objective of this systematic review is to describe patient survival and complications when the ProtekDuo cannula was used as part of an tpRVAD system. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from database inception to August 26, 2022. Reference sections of studies were reviewed to screen for database omissions. Results: Seven studies with 127 patients were eligible for inclusion. The studies included patients with aRVF from a variety of causes. Mean duration of support was between 10 and 58 days in five studies. Patient survival to discharge was between 60% and 85.2% in two studies. Four authors reported 30-day survival between 60% and 85.2%. Devicerelated and non-device related complications were low. Conclusions: Patients treated with RVAD using the ProtekDuo cannula have comparable survival rates and complications to other tpRVAD systems. Several advantages exist compared to other RVAD systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain.Objective: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death.Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction of anesthesia and 1 hour after tracheal intubation). The secondary outcome was the incidence of death prior to day 28, which was censored at hospital discharge.Results: Among 1067 patients randomized, 1065 (99.8%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-70 years]; 42.1% were women). Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 113 patients (21.0%) in the fluid bolus group and in 96 patients (18.2%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 7.7%]; P = .25). New or increased receipt of vasopressors occurred in 20.6% of patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 17.6% of patients in the no fluid bolus group, a systolic blood pressure of less than 65 mm Hg occurred in 3.9% vs 4.2%, respectively, cardiac arrest occurred in 1.7% vs 1.5%, and death occurred in 0.7% vs 0.6%. Death prior to day 28 (censored at hospital discharge) occurred in 218 patients (40.5%) in the fluid bolus group compared with 223 patients (42.3%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -7.9% to 4.3%]; P = .55).Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, administration of an intravenous fluid bolus compared with no fluid bolus did not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiovascular collapse.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03787732. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reviews several electronic learning Web sites including http://tilt.lib.utsystem.edu hosted by the University of Texas System Digital Library, http://core.lib.purdue.edu hosted by Purdue University Libraries, and http://tip.uwyo.edu/intro1.htm hosted by the University of Wyoming Libraries.

Purpose: Most extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulations are performed by cardiothoracic surgeons (CTS). Due to an increase in utilization of ECMO and limited availability of CTS, there is a mismatch between ECMO demand and CTS accessibility for remote cannulations. We report our intensivist-led program's experience in remote ECMO cannulations, retrievals, complications, and outcomes., Materials and Methods: A prospective, single-center, observational study was performed on patients that required ECMO cannulation at the referring facilities and were transported to our institution between program initiation, on October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2022. Results were presented as mean ± SD, median (min - max) or number (%)., Results: Since program commencement, 305 patients were accepted for ECMO retrieval. Three hundred and three patients were placed on ECMO at the 47 referring hospitals among 5 states. In our study, 185 (61%) patients required veno-arterial ECMO and 115 (38%) were placed on veno-venous ECMO. Three patients (1%) were cannulated for veno-arteriovenous ECMO. Twenty patients were cannulated under cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. Most of the patients were transported by ambulance (79%), 14% by helicopter, and 7% by airplane. Six out of the 303 patients did not leave the referring facility. All patients that left the referring hospitals arrived safely to our institution. No major complications occurred in route., Conclusion: Our study's findings indicate that non-CTS physicians can successfully cannulate and retrieve patients with a low complication profile., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Mihu, Maybauer, Cain, Swant, Harper, Schoaps, Brewer, Sharif, Benson, El Banayosy and El Banayosy.)

Introduction: Cardiovascular collapse is a common complication during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Whether administration of an intravenous fluid bolus prevents cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation remains uncertain. A prior randomised trial found fluid bolus administration to be ineffective overall but suggested potential benefit for patients receiving positive pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation., Methods and Analysis: The PREventing cardiovascular collaPse with Administration of fluid REsuscitation during Induction and Intubation (PREPARE II) trial is a prospective, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in 13 academic intensive care units in the USA. The trial will randomise 1065 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with planned use of positive pressure ventilation (non-invasive ventilation or bag-mask ventilation) between induction and laryngoscopy to receive 500 mL of intravenous crystalloid or no intravenous fluid bolus. The primary outcome is cardiovascular collapse, defined as any of: systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg, new or increased vasopressor administration between induction and 2 min after intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction and 1 hour after intubation. The primary analysis will be an unadjusted, intention-to-treat comparison of the primary outcome between patients randomised to fluid bolus administration and patients randomised to no fluid bolus administration using a χ 2 test. The sole secondary outcome is 28-day in-hospital mortality. Enrolment began on 1 February 2019 and is expected to conclude in June 2020., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial was approved by either the central institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at each trial site. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT03787732., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)