Search

Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of mortality. Despite decades of intensive research and several technological advancements, survival rates remain low. The integration of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been recognized as a promising approach in refractory OHCA. However, evidence from recent randomized controlled trials yielded contradictory results, and the criteria for selecting eligible patients are still a subject of debate. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of refractory OHCA patients treated with ECPR. All adult patients who received ECPR, according to the hospital algorithm, from 2013 to 2021 were included. Two different algorithms were used during this period. A "permissive" algorithm was used from 2013 to mid-2016. Subsequently, a revised algorithm, more "restrictive", based on international guidelines, was implemented from mid-2016 to 2021. Key differences between the two algorithms included reducing the no-flow time from less than three minutes to zero minutes (implying that the cardiac arrests must occur in the presence of a witness with immediate CPR initiation), reducing low-flow duration from 100 to 60 min, and lowering the age limit from 65 to 55 years. The aim of this study is to compare these two algorithms (permissive (1) and restrictive (2)) to determine if the use of a restrictive algorithm was associated with higher survival rates. Results: A total of 48 patients were included in this study, with 23 treated under Algorithm 1 and 25 under Algorithm 2. A significant difference in survival rate was observed in favor of the restrictive algorithm (9% vs. 68%, p < 0.05). Moreover, significant differences emerged between algorithms regarding the no-flow time (0 (0–5) vs. 0 (0–0) minutes, p < 0.05). Survivors had a significantly shorter no-flow and low-flow time (0 (0–0) vs. 0 (0–3) minutes, p < 0.01 and 40 (31–53) vs. 60 (45–80) minutes, p < 0.05), respectively. Conclusion: The present study emphasizes that a stricter selection of OHCA patients improves survival rates in ECPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has overwhelmed health care systems worldwide since its first wave. Intensive care units have been under a significant amount of pressure as patients with the most severe form of the disease presented with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A proportion of them experienced refractory acute respiratory failure and had to be supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). The present retrospective study reports the experiences of our ECMO center in the management of COVID-19 patients with refractory ARDS. Patient characteristics and outcomes are presented through the different waves of the pandemic. A cohort study was conducted on patients with refractory ARDS due to COVID-19 infection who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at the Geneva University Hospital and supported with VV-ECMO between 14 March 2020 and January 2022. The VV-ECMO implementation criteria were defined according to an institutional algorithm validated by the local crisis unit of the hospital and the Swiss Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Among the 500 ARDS patients admitted to our ICU, 41 patients with a median age of 57 (52–63) years, a body mass index (BMI) of 28 (26–32) kg/m2, and a SAPS II score of 57 (47–67), and 27 (66%) of whom were men required VV-ECMO. None of the patients were vaccinated. The time of ventilation, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and mechanical ventilation (MV), and the time of MV before ECMO were 7 (4–11) days and 4 (1–7) days, respectively. The time under ECMO was 20 (10–27) days. The ICU and hospital lengths of stay were 36 (21–45) days and 45 (33–69) days, respectively. The survival rate for patients on ECMO was 59%. Comparative analysis between survivors and non-survivors highlighted that survivors had a significantly shorter ventilation duration before ECMO (NIV + MV: 5.5 (1.3–9) vs. 9 (6.5–13.5) days, p = 0.0026 and MV alone: 1.6 (0.4–5.5) vs. 5.8 (5–8) days, p < 0.0001). The management of patients on ECMO by an experienced ECMO team dedicated to this activity was associated with improved survival (78% vs. 28%, p = 0.0012). Between the first wave and the following waves, patients presented with a higher incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (100% vs. 82%, p = 0.0325) but had better survival rates (74% vs. 35%, p = 0.024). The present study suggests that both the prompt insertion of VV-ECMO to control refractory hypoxemia and the involvement of an ECMO team improve the survival of COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease with an annual incidence rate ranging from 39–115 per 100,000 inhabitants. It is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular mortality in the USA and Europe. While the clinical presentation and severity may vary, it is a life-threatening condition in its most severe form, defined as high-risk or massive PE. Therapeutic options in high-risk PE are limited. Current guidelines recommend the use of systemic thrombolytic therapy as first-line therapy (Level Ib). However, this treatment has important drawbacks including bleeding complications, limited efficacy in patients with recurrent PE or cardiac arrest, and formal contraindications. In this context, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in the management of high-risk PE has increased worldwide in the last decade. Strategies, including VA-ECMO as a stand-alone therapy or as a bridge to alternative reperfusion therapies, are associated with acceptable outcomes, especially if implemented before cardiac arrest. Nonetheless, the level of evidence supporting ECMO and alternative reperfusion therapies is low. The optimal management of high-risk PE patients will remain controversial until the realization of a prospective randomized trial comparing those cited strategies to systemic thrombolysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ECMO is the most frequently used mechanical support for patients suffering from low cardiac output syndrome. Combining IABP with ECMO is believed to increase coronary artery blood flow, decrease high afterload, and restore systemic pulsatile flow conditions. This study evaluates that combined effect on coronary artery flow during various load conditions using an in vitro circuit. In doing so, different clinical scenarios were simulated, such as normal cardiac output and moderate-to-severe heart failure. In the heart failure scenarios, we used peripheral ECMO support to compensate for the lowered cardiac output value and reach a default normal value. The increase in coronary blood flow using the combined IABP-ECMO setup was more noticeable in low heart rate conditions. At baseline, intermediate and severe LV failure levels, adding IABP increased coronary mean flow by 16%, 7.5%, and 3.4% (HR 60 bpm) and by 6%, 4.5%, and 2.5% (HR 100 bpm) respectively. Based on our in vitro study results, combining ECMO and IABP in a heart failure setup further improves coronary blood flow. This effect was more pronounced at a lower heart rate and decreased with heart failure, which might positively impact recovery from cardiac failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Massive acute pulmonary embolism (MAPE) with obstructive cardiogenic shock is associated with a mortality rate of more than 50%. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been increasingly used in refractory cardiogenic shock with very good results. In MAPE, although it is currently recommended as part of initial resuscitation, it is not yet considered a stand-alone therapy. Material and Methods: All patients with MAPE requiring the establishment of VA-ECMO and admitted to our tertiary intensive care unit were analysed over a period of 10 years. The characteristics of these patients, before, during and after ECMO were extracted and analysed. Results: A total of 36 patients were included in the present retrospective study. Overall survival was 64%. In the majority of cases, the haemodynamic and respiratory status of the patient improved significantly within the first 24 h on ECMO. The 30-day survival significantly increased when ECMO was used as stand-alone therapy (odds ratio (OR) 15.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.65–91.57, p = 0.002). Nevertheless, when ECMO was implanted following the failure of thrombolysis, the bleeding complications were major (17 (100%) vs. 1 (5.3%) patients, p < 0.001) and the 30-day mortality increased significantly (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.022–0.520, p = 0.006). Conclusions: The present retrospective study is certainly one of the most important in terms of the number of patients with MAPE and shock treated with VA-ECMO. This short-term mechanical circulatory support, used as a stand-alone therapy in MAPE, allows for the optimal stabilisation of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moreover, by decreasing LV end-diastolic pressure following an unloading of the LV, IABP decreases the LV wall tension and LV transmural pressure [1] (Figure 1). Journal of Clinical Medicine Editorial Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock May Still Be a Valuable Association Florian Rey 1, Raphaël Giraud 2 and Karim Bendjelid 2, * Citation: Rey, F.; Giraud, R.; Bendjelid, K. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock May Still Be a Valuable Association. [Extracted from the article]

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a frequent cause of death and a major public health issue. To date, conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the only efficient method of resuscitation available that positively impacts prognosis. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a complex and costly technique that requires technical expertise. It is not considered standard of care in all hospitals and should be applied only in high-volume facilities. ECMO combined with CPR is known as ECPR (extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and permits hemodynamic and respiratory stabilization of patients with CA refractory to conventional CPR. This technique allows the parallel treatment of the underlying etiology of CA while maintaining organ perfusion. However, current evidence does not support the routine use of ECPR in all patients with refractory CA. Therefore, an appropriate selection of patients who may benefit from this procedure is key. Reducing the duration of low blood flow by means of performing high-quality CPR and promoting access to ECPR, may improve the survival rate of the patients presenting with refractory CA. Indeed, patients who benefit from ECPR seem to carry better neurological outcomes. The aim of this present narrative review is to present the most recent literature available on ECPR and to clarify its potential therapeutic role, as well as to provide an in-depth explanation of equipment and its set up, the patient selection process, and the patient management post-ECPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]