Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Case Series and Literature Review.
Détails
Télécharger: 39077191.pdf (2746.04 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY 4.0
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: CC BY 4.0
ID Serval
serval:BIB_F21D9144A965
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Case Series and Literature Review.
Périodique
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN
1530-6550 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
1530-6550
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
06/2022
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
23
Numéro
6
Pages
193
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article
Publication Status: epublish
Publication Status: epublish
Résumé
High-risk Pulmonary Embolism (PE) has an ominous prognosis and requires emergent reperfusion therapy, primarily systemic thrombolysis (ST). In deteriorating patients or with contraindications to ST, Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may be life-saving, as supported by several retrospective studies. However, due to the heterogeneous clinical presentation (refractory shock, resuscitated cardiac arrest (CA) or refractory CA), the real impact of VA-ECMO in high-risk PE remains to be fully determined. In this study, we present our centre experience with VA-ECMO for high-risk PE.
From 2008 to 2020, we analyzed all consecutive patients treated with VA-ECMO for high-risk PE in our tertiary 35-bed intensive care unit (ICU). Demographic variables, types of reperfusion therapies, indications for VA-ECMO (refractory shock or refractory CA requiring extra-corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR), hemodynamic variables, initial arterial blood lactate and ICU complications were recorded. The primary outcome was ICU survival, and secondary outcome was hospital survival.
Our cohort included 18 patients (9F/9M, median age 57 years old). VA-ECMO was indicated for refractory shock in 7 patients (2 primary and 5 following resuscitated CA) and for refractory CA in 11 patients. Eight patients received anticoagulation only, 9 received ST, and 4 underwent surgical embolectomy. ICU survival was 1/11 (9%) for ECPR vs 3/7 (42%) in patients with refractory shock (p = 0.03, log-rank test). Hospital survival was 0/11 (0%) for ECPR vs 3/7 for refractory shock (p = 0.01, log-rank test). Survivors and Non-survivors had comparable demographic and hemodynamic variables, pulmonary obstruction index, and amounts of administered vasoactive drugs. Pre-ECMO lactate was significantly higher in non-survivors. Massive bleeding was the most frequent complication in survivors and non-survivors, and was the direct cause of death in 3 patients, all treated with ST.
VA-ECMO for high-risk PE has very different outcomes depending on the clinical context. Furthermore, VA-ECMO was associated with significant bleeding complications, with more severe consequences following systemic thrombolysis. Future studies on VA-ECMO for high-risk PE should therefore take into account the distinct clinical presentations and should determine the best strategy for reperfusion in such circumstances.
From 2008 to 2020, we analyzed all consecutive patients treated with VA-ECMO for high-risk PE in our tertiary 35-bed intensive care unit (ICU). Demographic variables, types of reperfusion therapies, indications for VA-ECMO (refractory shock or refractory CA requiring extra-corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR), hemodynamic variables, initial arterial blood lactate and ICU complications were recorded. The primary outcome was ICU survival, and secondary outcome was hospital survival.
Our cohort included 18 patients (9F/9M, median age 57 years old). VA-ECMO was indicated for refractory shock in 7 patients (2 primary and 5 following resuscitated CA) and for refractory CA in 11 patients. Eight patients received anticoagulation only, 9 received ST, and 4 underwent surgical embolectomy. ICU survival was 1/11 (9%) for ECPR vs 3/7 (42%) in patients with refractory shock (p = 0.03, log-rank test). Hospital survival was 0/11 (0%) for ECPR vs 3/7 for refractory shock (p = 0.01, log-rank test). Survivors and Non-survivors had comparable demographic and hemodynamic variables, pulmonary obstruction index, and amounts of administered vasoactive drugs. Pre-ECMO lactate was significantly higher in non-survivors. Massive bleeding was the most frequent complication in survivors and non-survivors, and was the direct cause of death in 3 patients, all treated with ST.
VA-ECMO for high-risk PE has very different outcomes depending on the clinical context. Furthermore, VA-ECMO was associated with significant bleeding complications, with more severe consequences following systemic thrombolysis. Future studies on VA-ECMO for high-risk PE should therefore take into account the distinct clinical presentations and should determine the best strategy for reperfusion in such circumstances.
Mots-clé
Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, General Medicine, cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, extra-corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), obstructive cardiogenic shock, pulmonary embolism, veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO)
Pubmed
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Financement(s)
Université de Lausanne
Création de la notice
04/05/2022 12:23
Dernière modification de la notice
27/08/2024 6:33