Search

Background: Peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (pECMO) has become the first-line device in refractory cardiogenic shock (rCS). Some pECMO complications can preclude any bridging strategies and a peripheral-to-central ECMO (cECMO) switch can be considered as a bridge-to-decision. We conducted this study to appraise the in-hospital survival and the bridging strategies in patients undergoing peripheral-to-central ECMO switch. Methods: This retrospective monocenter study included patients admitted to a ECMO-dedicated intensive care unit from February 2006 to January 2023. Patients with rCS requiring pECMO switched to cECMO were included. Patients were not included when the cECMO was the first mechanical circulatory support. Results: Eighty patients, with a median [IQR25-75] age of 44 [29–53] years at admission and a female-to-male sex ratio of 0.6 were included in the study. Refractory pulmonary edema was the main switching reason. Thirty patients (38%) were successfully bridged to: heart transplantation (n = 16/80, 20%), recovery (n = 10/80, 12%) and ventricle assist device (VAD, n = 4/30, 5%) while the others died on cECMO (n = 50/80, 62%). The most frequent complications were the need for renal replacement therapy (76%), hemothorax or tamponade (48%), need for surgical revision (34%), mediastinitis (28%), and stroke (28%). The in-hospital and one-year survival rates were 31% and 27% respectively. Myocardial infarction as the cause of the rCS was the only variable independently associated with in-hospital mortality (HR 2.5 [1.3–4.9], p = 0.009). Conclusions: The switch from a failing pECMO support to a cECMO as a bridge-to-decision is a possible strategy for a very selected population of young patients with a realistic chance of heart function recovery or heart transplantation. In this setting, cECMO allows patients triage preventing from wasting expensive and limited resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fulminant myocarditis is a rare and severe disease whose definite and etiological diagnoses rely on pathological examination. Albeit, myocardial biopsy can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality, its therapeutic consequences are unclear. We conducted a study to determine the diagnostic yield, the safety and the therapeutic consequences of myocardial biopsy in patients with fulminant clinically suspected myocarditis unweanable from mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Methods: Monocenter, retrospective, observational cohort study in a 26-bed French tertiary ICU between January 2002 and February 2019. Inclusion of all fulminant clinically suspected myocarditis patients undergoing in-ICU myocardial biopsy while being on MCS. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients classified as definite myocarditis using Bonaca criteria before and after including myocardial biopsy results. Results: Forty-seven patients (median age 41 [30–47], female 53%) were included: 55% died before hospital discharge, 34% could be bridged-to-recovery and 15% bridged-to-transplant. Myocardial biopsy was endomyocardial or surgical in 36% and 64% cases respectively. Tamponade requiring emergency pericardiocentesis occurred in 29% patients after endomyocardial biopsy. After adding the biopsy results in the Bonaca classification algorithm the percentage of definite myocarditis raised from 13 to 55% (p < 0.0001). The rate of biopsy-related treatments modifications was 13%, leading to patients' recovery in only 4% patients. Conclusions: In clinically suspected myocarditis unweanable from MCS, myocardial biopsy increased the rate of definite myocarditis but was associated with a low rate of treatment modification and a significant proportion of adverse events. We believe the benefit/risk ratio of myocardial biopsy should be more carefully weighted in these frail and selected patients than suggested by actual guidelines. Further prospective studies are now needed to determine its value in patients under MCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]