Potential Impact of Direct Versus Indirect Central Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) Cannulation in Refractory Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock
Background Central venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a commonly employed strategy to support patients in refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (RPCS). This support can be provided using either indirect central ECMO (icECMO) with a closed thorax or direct central ECMO (dcECMO) with an open thorax. Methods This single-center retrospective analysis included 60 patients undergoing central VA-ECMO for RPCS from January 2019 to December 2020. The primary endpoint of this study is to compare 30-day survival outcomes between the icECMO and dcECMO approaches in RPCS patients. Secondary endpoints include the evaluation of adverse events and the identification of predictors that influence 30-day mortality. Results The study included 60 patients, 25 received icECMO and 35 treated with dcECMO due to RPCS. The icECMO group demonstrated significantly better 30-day survival rates (icECMO; 10 [40%] vs. dcECMO; 5 [14.3%], log-rank test; p=0.042). Despite comparable ECMO flow rate and ECMO RPM (rotations per minute) in the first day between the study groups ([icECMO; 4.5 l/min vs. dcECMO; 4.6 l/min, p=0.124], [icECMO; 3510 rpm vs. dcECMO; 3800 rpm, p=0.115], respectively), lactate levels were significantly higher in the dcECMO group on the 1st and 3rd post-extracorporeal life support (ECLS) days (p=0.006 and p=0.008, respectively). Gastrointestinal ischemia was more common in the dcECMO group (p=0.036). Successful ECMO weaning was more frequent in the icECMO group (56% vs. 22.9%, p=0.014). Multivariable logistic regression identified arterial lactate on the first day with a cutoff 4 mmol/l as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality with Exp(B) of 8.9 (p=0.007). Conclusions Our findings suggest a potential survival advantage with the icECMO technique in patients undergoing central ECMO cannulation after RPCS. However, larger prospective studies are essential to confirm this observation.
Authors
- Fritz Mellert
- Mohammad Aldabbas (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0869-5260)
- Oliver Dewald (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5216-7978)
- Christopher Gestrich (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4180-1037)
- Baravan Al‐Kassou (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2967-6613)
- Wael Al Ghareeb
- Georg Nickenig (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2944-6033)
- Abdou Sheikh Ali
Institutions
- Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
- University Hospital Bonn (DE)
- Universitätsklinikum Erlangen (DE)
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen (DE)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Cureus
- Published
- 2024-09-14
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.69415
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.18