Postcardiotomy Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With and Without Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Impact of Impella Support on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock

PURPOSE

This study aimed to elucidate the strategy of an effective Impella support for better clinical outcomes in patients with a postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS).

METHODS

This single-center retrospective observational study enrolled 31 patients with PCCS undergoing an elective open-heart surgery followed by Impella support between November 2018 and February 2022 for further analysis.

RESULTS

The preoperative Euroscore II and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction were 9.1 ± 10.4 and 35.7% ± 12.6%, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate was 51.6% (n = 16). In survivors (n = 15), the mean Impella support time was 6.9 ± 3.5 days. Patients were discharged on the postoperative day 24.9 ± 16.4. Regarding LV remodeling, LV end-diastolic diameter was significantly decreased after Impella support (59.2 ± 6.0 mm vs. 54.4 ± 4.7 mm, p = 0.01, preoperative vs. postoperative). In-hospital mortality rates were comparable with small (CP, n = 6) or large (5.0, n = 25) Impella systems (33.3% [n = 2] vs. 56.0% [n = 14], p = 0.39). However, a lower in-hospital mortality rate was observed in the group with early initiation (i.e., intraoperative) of Impella support (n = 14) than that with delayed Impella initiation (i.e., in the postoperative course) (n = 11) (28.6% [n = 4] vs. 90.9% [n = 10], p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Impella support contributes to LV remodeling in PCCS patients. In-hospital mortality was comparable in different Impella sizes and lower in early Impella initiation.

Postcardiotomy Shock Syndrome: A Narrative Review of Perioperative Diagnosis and Management

Postcardiotomy shock (PCS) is generally described as the inability to separate from cardiopulmonary bypass due to ineffective cardiac output after cardiotomy, which is caused by a primary cardiac disorder, resulting in inadequate tissue perfusion. Postcardiotomy shock occurs in 0.5% to 1.5% of contemporary cardiac surgery cases, and is accompanied by an in-hospital mortality of approximately 67%. In the last 2 decades, the incidence of PCS has increased, likely due to the increased age and baseline morbidity of patients requiring cardiac surgery. In this narrative review, the authors discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of PCS, the rationale and evidence behind the initiation, continuation, escalation, and discontinuation of mechanical support devices in PCS, and the anesthetic implications.

Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

Studies on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with and without an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for cardiogenic shock (CS) have been published, but there have been no meta-analyses that compare the efficacy of these two cardiac support methods. This meta-analysis evaluated the outcomes of these two different treatment measures.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials databases were searched until March 2022. Studies that were related to ECMO with or without IABP in patients with CS were screened. Quality assessments were evaluated with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). The primary outcome was in-hospital survival, while the secondary outcomes included duration of ECMO, duration of ICU stay, infection/sepsis, and bleeding. Revman 5.3 and STATA software were used for this meta-analysis.

Results

In total, nine manuscripts with 2,573 patients were included in the systematic review. CS patients who received ECMO in combination with IABP had significantly improved in-hospital survival compared with ECMO alone (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.26–1.98, P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of ECMO (MD = 0.36, 95% CI = −0.12–0.84, P = 0.14), duration of ICU stay (MD = −1.95, 95% CI = −4.05–0.15, P = 0.07), incidence of infection/sepsis (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.58–1.72, P = 1.0), or bleeding (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.48–3.45, P = 0.62) between the two groups of patients with CS.

Conclusion

ECMO combined with IABP can improve in-hospital survival more effectively than ECMO alone in patients with CS.