Search

Refractory septic shock is associated with a high risk of death. Circulatory support in the form of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) may function as a bridge to recovery, allowing for the treatment of the source of the sepsis. Whilst VA ECMO has been accepted as the means of hemodynamic support for children, in adults, single center observational studies show survival rates of only 70–90% for hypodynamic septic shock. The use of VA ECMO for circulatory support in hyperdynamic septic shock with preserved cardiac output or when applied late during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is not recommended. With unresolving septic shock and a loss of ventriculo–arterial coupling, stress cardiomyopathy often develops. If the cardiac index (CI) approaches subnormal levels (CI < 2.5 L/min m−2) that do not match low systemic vascular resistance with a resulting loss of vital systemic perfusion pressure, VA ECMO support should be considered. A further decrease to the level of cardiogenic shock (CI < 1.8 L/min m−2) should be regarded as an indication for VA ECMO insertion. For patients who maintain a normal-to-high CI as part of their refractory vasoparalysis, VA ECMO support is justified in children and possibly in patients with a low body mass index. Extracorporeal support for septic shock should be limited to high-volume ECMO centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a temporary mechanical assistance method employed in acute respiratory, cardiocirculatory, and cardio‐respiratory failure, refractory to conventional treatments. Patient's hemodynamic, respiratory and metabolic condition, or situations related to ECLS support or performance, may change during ECLS treatment. Provision of an additional drainage or perfusion cannula, or even of an additional associated device, for example, transaortic suction device or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP), may be required to improve the ECLS/patient interaction and effects. Besides such a modified ECLS mode, however, a potential asset is represented by the "dynamic ECLS," which is the change of the flow direction (drainage or perfusion) in the already implanted cannula during the ECLS run. This particular management may be achieved in venous femoral or jugular cannulation, but it finds an even more appealing potential with the pulmonary artery (PA) cannulation. The PA allows the institution of a multitasking ECLS circuit, ranging from enhanced left ventricle (LV) unloading (drainage from the PA) to a right ventricular support or "central" veno‐venous ECLS (perfusing the PA), tailored according to the patient hemodynamic, gas exchange, metabolic state, underlying cardiac involvement, and ECLS performance. Dynamic ECLS may, therefore, represent an additional option in ECLS management, particularly including the PA cannulation. Based on this new dynamic management of ECLS mode, we propose the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization nomenclature update. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No major study has been performed on the conversion from venovenous (VV) to venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in adults. This single-center retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the incidence, indication, and outcome in patients who converted from VV to VA ECMO. All adult patients (≥18 years) who commenced VV ECMO at our center between 2005 and 2018 were screened. Of 219 VV ECMO patients, 21% (n = 46) were converted to VA ECMO. The indications for conversion were right ventricular failure (RVF) (65%), cardiogenic shock (26%), and other (9%). In the converted patients, there was a significant increase in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores between admission 12 (9–13) and conversion 15 (13–17, p < 0.001). Compared to non-converted patients, converted patients also had a higher mortality rate (62% vs. 16%, p < 0.001) and a lower admission Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) score (p < 0.001). Outcomes were especially unfavorable in those converted due to RVF. These results indicate that VA ECMO, as opposed to VV ECMO, should be considered as the first mode of choice in patients with respiratory failure and signs of circulatory impairment, especially in those with impaired RV function. For the remaining patients, Pre-admission RESP score, daily echocardiography, and SOFA score trajectories may help in the early identification of those where conversion from VV to VA ECMO is warranted. Multi-centric studies are warranted to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple prognostic scores have been developed for both veno-arterial (VA) and veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), mostly in single-center cohorts. The aim of this study was to compare and validate different prediction scores in a large multicenter ECMO-population. Methods: Data from five ECMO centers included 300 patients on VA and 329 on VV ECMO support (March 2008 to November 2016). Different prognostic scores were compared between survivors and non-survivors: APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II in all patients; SAVE, modified SAVE and MELD-XI in VA ECMO; RESP, PRESET, ROCH and PRESERVE in VV ECMO. Model performance was compared using receiver-operating-curve analysis and assessment of model calibration. Survival was assessed at intensive care unit discharge. Results: The main indication for VA ECMO was cardiogenic shock; overall survival was 51%. ICU survivors had higher Glasgow Coma Scale scores and pH, required cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) less frequently, had lower lactate levels and shorter ventilation time pre-ECMO at baseline. The best discrimination between survivors and non-survivors was observed with the SAPS II score (area under the curve [AUC] of 0.73 (95% CI 0.67–0.78)). The main indication for VV ECMO was pneumonia; overall survival was 60%. Lower PaCO2, higher pH, lower lactate and lesser need for CPR were observed among survivors. The best discrimination between survivors and non-survivors was observed with the PRESET score (AUC 0.66 (95% CI 0.60–0.72)). Conclusion: The prognostic performance of most scores was moderate in ECMO patients. The use of such scores to decide about ECMO implementation in potential candidates should be discouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]