ECMO for drug-refractory electrical storm without a reversible trigger: a retrospective multicentric observational study

AIMS

Drug-refractory electrical storm (ES) is a life-threatening medical emergency. We describe the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in drug-refractory ES without a reversible trigger, for which specific guideline recommendations are still lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective observational study in four Iberian centres on the indications, treatment, complications, and outcome of drug-refractory ES not associated with acute coronary syndromes, decompensated heart failure, drug toxicity, electrolyte disturbances, endocrine emergencies, concomitant acute illness with fever, or poor compliance with anti-arrhythmic drugs, requiring VA-ECMO for circulatory support. Thirty-four (6%) out of 552 patients with VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock were included [71% men; 57 (44-62) years], 65% underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation before VA-ECMO implantation, and 26% during cannulation. Left ventricular unloading during VA-ECMO was used in 8 (24%) patients: 3 (9%) with intraaortic balloon pump, 3 (9%) with LV vent, and 2 (6%) with Impella. Thirty (88%) had structural heart disease and 8 (24%) had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The drug-refractory ES was mostly due to monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) (59%), isolated monomorphic VT (26%), polymorphic VT (9%), or VF (6%). Thirty-one (91%) required deep sedation, 44% overdrive pacing, 36% catheter ablation, and 26% acute autonomic modulation. The main complications were nosocomial infection (47%), bleeding (24%), and limb ischaemia (21%). Eighteen (53%) were weaned from VA-ECMO, and 29% had heart transplantation. Twenty-seven (79%) survived to hospital discharge (48 (33-82) days). Non-survivors were older [62 (58-67) vs. 54 (43-58); P < 0.01] and had a higher first rhythm disorder-to-ECMO interval [0 (0-2) vs. 2 (1-11) days; P = 0.02]. Seven (20%) had rehospitalization during follow-up [29 (12-48) months], with ES recurrence in 6%.

CONCLUSIONS

VA-ECMO bridged drug-refractory ES without a reversible trigger with a high success rate. This required prolonged hospital stays and coordination between the ECMO centre, the electrophysiology laboratory, and the heart transplant programme.

Standardized approach for extubation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Extubation during extracorporeal oxygenation (ECMO) in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has not been well studied. Despite the potential benefits of this strategy, weaning from ECMO before liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation remains the most frequent approach. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a standardized approach for extubation during ECMO in patients with severe ARDS.

RESULTS

We conducted a prospective observational study to assess the safety and feasibility of a standardized approach for extubation during ECMO in severe ARDS among 254 adult patients across 4 intensive care units (ICU) from 2 tertiary ECMO centers over 6 years. This consisted of a daily assessment of clinical and gas exchange criteria based on an Extracorporeal Life Support Organization guideline, with extubation during ECMO after validation by a dedicated intensive care medicine specialist. Fifty-four (21%) patients were extubated during ECMO, 167 (66%) did not reach the clinical criteria, and in 33 (13%) patients, gas exchange precluded extubation during ECMO. At ECMO initiation, there were fewer extrapulmonary organ dysfunctions (lower SOFA score [OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.98; P = .02] with similar PaO2/FiO2) when compared with patients not extubated during ECMO. Extubation during ECMO associated with shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (7 (4-18) vs. 32 (18-54) days; P < .01) and of ECMO (12 (7-25) vs. 19 (10-41) days; P = .01). This was accompanied by a lower incidence of hemorrhagic shock (2 vs. 11%; P = .05), but more cannula-associated deep vein thrombosis (49 vs. 31%; P = .02) and failed extubation (20 vs. 6%; P < .01). There were no increased major adverse events. Extubation during ECMO is associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, independently of measured confounding (adjusted logistic regression OR 0.23; 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.69, P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized approach was safe and feasible allowing extubation during ECMO in 21% of patients with severe ARDS, selecting patients who will have a shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, ECMO course, and ICU stay, as well as fewer infectious complications, and high hospital survival.