Search

Background: In refractory cardiogenic shock, temporary mechanical support (tMCS) may be crucial for maintaining tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. tMCS can serve as a bridge-to-decision to assess eligibility for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation or heart transplantation, or as a bridge-to-recovery. ECPELLA is a novel tMCS configuration combining venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with Impella. The present study presents the clinical parameters, outcomes, and complications of patients supported with ECPELLA. Methods: All patients supported with ECPELLA at University Medical Centre Utrecht between December 2020 and August 2023 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were LVAD implantation/heart transplantation and safety outcomes. Results: Twenty patients with an average age of 51 years, and of whom 70% were males, were included. Causes of cardiogenic shock were acute heart failure (due to acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis, or after cardiac surgery) or chronic heart failure, respectively 70 and 30% of cases. The median duration of ECPELLA support was 164 h (interquartile range 98–210). In 50% of cases, a permanent LVAD was implanted. Cardiac recovery within 30 days was seen in 30% of cases and 30-day mortality rate was 20%. ECPELLA support was associated with major bleeding (40%), haemolysis (25%), vascular complications (30%), kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (50%), and Impella failure requiring extraction (15%). Conclusion: ECPELLA can be successfully used as a bridge to LVAD implantation or as a bridge-to-recovery in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. Despite a significant number of complications, 30-day mortality was lower than observed in previous cohorts.

Knowing cardiac physiology is essential for health care professionals working in the cardiovascular field. Pressure–volume loops (PVLs) offer a unique understanding of the myocardial working and have become pivotal in complex pathophysiological scenarios, such as profound cardiogenic shock or when mechanical circulatory supports are implemented. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the left and right ventricle physiology, based on the PVL interpretation.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) has become a standard of care for severe cardiogenic shock, refractory cardiac arrest and related impending multiorgan failure. The widespread clinical use of this complex temporary circulatory support modality is still contrasted by a lack of formal scientific evidence in the current literature. This might at least in part be attributable to VA ECMO related complications, which may significantly impact on clinical outcome. In order to limit adverse effects of VA ECMO as much as possible an indepth understanding of the complex physiology during extracorporeally supported cardiogenic shock states is critically important. This review covers all relevant physiological aspects of VA ECMO interacting with the human body in detail. This, to provide a solid basis for health care professionals involved in the daily management of patients supported with VA ECMO and suffering from cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest and impending multiorgan failure for the best possible care.

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common and potentially avoidable cause of death, while constituting a substantial public health burden. Although survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have improved in recent decades, the prognosis for refractory OHCA remains poor. The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly being considered to support rescue measures when conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) fails. ECPR enables immediate haemodynamic and respiratory stabilisation of patients with CA who are refractory to conventional CPR and thereby reduces the low-flow time, promoting favourable neurological outcomes. In the case of refractory OHCA, multiple studies have shown beneficial effects in specific patient categories. However, ECPR might be more effective if it is implemented in the pre-hospital setting to reduce the low-flow time, thereby limiting permanent brain damage. The ongoing ON-SCENE trial might provide a definitive answer regarding the effectiveness of ECPR. The aim of this narrative review is to present the most recent literature available on ECPR and its current developments.

Infectious complications are common during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and may negatively impact outcomes. However, there is considerable variation in the reported rates of incidence, which hampers the use of infections as a quality benchmark for ECMO centers. To assess the contributing role of poor interrater agreement, three independent raters reviewed medical records from all intensive care unit (ICU) patients who received ECMO for >24 h in our tertiary center between October 2019 and October 2021 for suspected episodes of infection, which were rated based on their date of onset and presumed site/diagnosis. To establish a gold standard, any discrepancies were resolved using an expert panel consisting of two intensivists/infectious disease specialists. During 83 ECMO-runs in 77 patients, we observed a total of 62 adjudicated infectious episodes (incidence rate 62, 95% CI: 48–80, per 1000 days at risk). Among 81 episodes suspected by at least one observer, 66 (81%) were identified by two, and only 44 (54%) by all three raters, resulting in Fleiss’ kappa of 0.10 (95% CI: 0.00–0.19; slight agreement). However, if raters concurred regarding infection onset, subsequent agreement on infection site was good (concordance 89%; kappa 0.85, 95% CI: 0.72–0.98; near perfect agreement). In conclusion, adjudication of infectious episodes during ECMO is associated with poor interrater agreement regarding occurrence—but not site—of infection. This finding might partially explain the significant disparities observed in reported infection rates during ECMO, emphasizing the need for caution when interpreting infection data in this particular population due to the potential for inherent measurement error.

Background: Evidence-based recommendations for transfusion in patients with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) are scarce. The current literature is limited to single-center studies with small sample sizes, therefore complicating generalizability. This study aims to create an overview of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in VA ECMO patients. Methods: This international mixed-method study combined a survey with a retrospective observational study in 16 centers. The survey inventoried local transfusion guidelines. Additionally, retrospective data of all adult patients with a VA ECMO run >24 h (January 2018 until July 2019) was collected of patient, ECMO, outcome, and daily transfusion parameters. All patients that received VA ECMO for primary cardiac support were included, including surgical (i.e., post-cardiotomy) and non-surgical (i.e., myocardial infarction) indications. The primary outcome was the number of RBC transfusions per day and in total. Univariable logistic regressions and a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) were performed to assess factors associated with RBC transfusion. Results: Out of 419 patients, 374 (89%) received one or more RBC transfusions. During a median ECMO run of 5 days (1st–3rd quartile 3–8), patients received a median total of eight RBC units (1st–3rd quartile 3–17). A lower hemoglobin (Hb) prior to ECMO, longer ECMO-run duration, and hemorrhage were associated with RBC transfusion. After correcting for duration and hemorrhage using a GLMM, a different transfusion trend was found among the regimens. No unadjusted differences were found in overall survival between either transfusion status or the different regimens, which remained after adjustment for potential confounders. Conclusion: RBC transfusion in patients on VA ECMO is very common. The sum of RBC transfusions increases rapidly after ECMO initiation, and is dependent on the

OBJECTIVES: To achieve optimal hemostatic balance in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), a liberal transfusion practice is currently applied despite clear evidence. We aimed to give an overview of the current use of plasma, fibrinogen concentrate, tranexamic acid (TXA), and prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) in patients on ECMO.DESIGN: A prespecified subanalysis of a multicenter retrospective study. Venovenous (VV)-ECMO and venoarterial (VA)-ECMO are analyzed as separate populations, comparing patients with and without bleeding and with and without thrombotic complications. SETTING: Sixteen international ICUs.PATIENTS: Adult patients on VA-ECMO or VV-ECMO.INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 420 VA-ECMO patients, 59% (n = 247) received plasma, 20% (n = 82) received fibrinogen concentrate, 17% (n = 70) received TXA, and 7% of patients (n = 28) received PCC. Fifty percent of patients (n = 208) suffered bleeding complications and 27% (n = 112) suffered thrombotic complications. More patients with bleeding complications than patients without bleeding complications received plasma (77% vs. 41%, p < 0.001), fibrinogen concentrate (28% vs 11%, p < 0.001), and TXA (23% vs 10%, p < 0.001). More patients with than without thrombotic complications received TXA (24% vs 14%, p = 0.02, odds ratio 1.75) in VA-ECMO, where no difference was seen in VV-ECMO. Of 205 VV-ECMO patients, 40% (n = 81) received plasma, 6% (n = 12) fibrinogen concentrate, 7% (n = 14) TXA, and 5% (n = 10) PCC. Thirty-nine percent (n = 80) of VV-ECMO patients suffered bleeding complications and 23% (n = 48) of patients suffered thrombotic complications. More patients with than without bleeding complications received plasma (58% vs 28%, p < 0.001), fibrinogen concentrate (13% vs 2%, p < 0.01), and TXA (11% vs 2%, p < 0.01).