1
|
Suture-based vs. pure plug-based vascular closure devices for VA-ECMO decannulation. Eur Heart J 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.1502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
VA-ECMO is a valuable treatment option for patients in cardiogenic shock, but complications during decannulation may worsen the overall outcome. To date, no larger study has ever compared suture-based to pure plug-based vessel closure devices for VA-ECMO decannulation.
Purpose
The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of suture-based to pure plug-based vascular closure devices for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) decannulation for patients with cardiogenic shock.
Methods
In this retrospective study, the outcome of 33 patients with suture-based closure devices implanted between 02/2019 to 05/2020 were compared to 38 patients with plug-based closured device implanted between 06/2020 to 11/2021.
Results
Closure device success rate was 88% in the suture-based group versus 97% in the plug-based group (Figure 1, p=0.27). Median number of devices used was two for patients with suture-based closure device and 1 for patients with plug-based closure device (p<0.01). Severe bleeding was more frequent in the suture-based (21%) compared to the plug-based group (3%) (Figure 2, p=0.04). Ischemic complications occurred in 6% with suture-based and 5% with plug-based device (p=1.00). Pseudoaneurysm formation was detected in 3% in both groups (p=1.00). Application of the femoral compression system was required in 27% of patient with suture-based closure device and 11% of patients with plug-based closure device (p=0.13). No switch to open vascular surgery due to closure device failure occurred in both groups.
Conclusions
Based on our retrospective analysis, we propose that plug-based vascular closure should be the preferred option for VA-ECMO decannulation. This hypothesis should be further tested in a randomized trial.
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Collapse
|
2
|
Propofol versus midazolam sedation in patients with cardiogenic shock – an observational propensity-matched study. Eur Heart J 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.1498] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Benzodiazepines are recommended as first line sedative agent in ventilated cardiogenic shock patients, although data regarding the optimal sedation strategy are sparse. On our cardiac ICU, midazolam was used as first line sedation until 2016, whereas soybean oil formulated propofol was used preferentially since 2017.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to investigate the hemodynamic effects of propofol versus midazolam sedation in our cardiogenic shock registry.
Methods
Mechanically ventilated patients suffering from cardiogenic shock were retrospectively enrolled from a cardiogenic shock registry. 174 patients treated predominantly with propofol were matched by propensity-score to 174 patients treated predominantly with midazolam.
Results
Catecholamine doses were similar on admission but significantly lower in the propofol group on days 1–4 of ICU stay (Figure 1). Mortality rate was 38% in the propofol and 52% in the midazolam group after 30 days (p=0.002, Figure 2). Rate of ≥BARC3 bleeding was significantly lower in the propofol group compared to the midazolam group (p=0.008). Age, gender, first lactate measured on ICU, first GFR measured on ICU, cardiac arrest, coaxial left ventricular assist device and sedation with midazolam were significantly associated with ICU mortality.
Conclusion
In this observational cohort study, sedation with propofol in comparison to midazolam was linked to a reduced dose of catecholamines, decreased mortality and bleeding rates for patients with cardiogenic shock. Based on this study and in contrast to current recommendations, propofol should be given consideration for sedation in cardiogenic shock patients.
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Collapse
|
3
|
Isoflurane sedation in patients undergoing VA-ECMO treatment for cardiogenic shock – an observational propensity-matched study. Eur Heart J 2020. [DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
The feasibility and hemodynamic effects of isoflurane sedation in cardiogenic shock in the presence of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) treatment is currently unknown.
Methods
Thirty-two cardiogenic shock patients with VA-ECMO treatment under sedation with volatile isoflurane on a cardiac intensive care unit have been enrolled in this retrospective single-center study and were matched by propensity score in a 1:1 ratio with intravenously (IV) sedated patients.
Results
Administration of isoflurane was associated with lower IV sedative drug use during VA-ECMO treatment (86% vs. 32%, p=0.01). Mean systolic arterial pressure was similar (94.3±12.6 mmHg versus 92.9±10.5 mmHg, p=0.65), but mean heart rate was significantly higher in the conventional sedation group, when compared to the isoflurane group (85.2±20.5 / min vs. 74.7±15.0 /min; p=0.02). Catecholamine doses, VA-ECMO blood and gas flow, ventilation time (304±143 h vs. 398±272 h, p=0.16), bleeding complications BARC3a or higher (59.3% vs. 65.3%, p=0.76) and 30-day mortality (59.2% vs. 63.4%, p=0.80) were similar in both groups.
Conclusions
Volatile sedation with isoflurane is feasible in patients with cardiogenic shock and VA-ECMO treatment and was not associated with higher catecholamine dosage or ECMO flow rate compared to IV sedation.
Mortality and bleeding
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding source: None
Collapse
|