Venting during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest contribute pre-dominantly to mortality in acute cardiovascular care. Here, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has emerged as an established therapeutic option for patients suffering from these life-threatening entities. VA-ECMO provides temporary circulatory support until causative treatments are effective and enables recovery or serves as a bridging strategy to surgical ventricular assist devices, heart transplantation or decision-making. However, in-hospital mortality rate in this treatment population is still around 60%. In the recently published ARREST trial, VA-ECMO treatment lowered mortality rate in patients with ongoing cardiac arrest due to therapy refractory ventricular fibrillation compared to standard advanced cardiac life support in selected patients. Whether VA-ECMO can reduce mortality compared to standard of care in cardiogenic shock has to be evaluated in the ongoing prospective randomized studies EURO-SHOCK (NCT03813134) and ECLS-SHOCK (NCT03637205). As an innate drawback of VA-ECMO treatment, the retrograde aortic flow could lead to an elevation of left ventricular (LV) afterload, increase in LV filling pressure, mitral regurgitation, and elevated left atrial pressure. This may compromise myocardial function and recovery, pulmonary hemodynamics-possibly with concomitant pulmonary congestion and even lung failure-and contribute to poor outcomes in a relevant proportion of treated patients. To overcome these detrimental effects, a multitude of venting strategies are currently engaged for both preventive and emergent unloading. This review aims to provide a comprehensive and structured synopsis of existing venting modalities and their specific hemodynamic characteristics. We discuss in detail the available data on outcome categories and complication rates related to the respective venting option.

Lüsebrink E ，Binzenhöfer L ，Kellnar A ，Müller C ，Scherer C ，Schrage B ，Joskowiak D ，Petzold T ，Braun D ，Brunner S ，Peterss S ，Hausleiter J ，Zimmer S ，Born F ，Westermann D ，Thiele H ，Schäfer A ，Hagl C ，Massberg S ，Orban M ... -  《-》

Prevention and treatment of pulmonary congestion in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock is still a major driver of mortality on intensive care units and complicates ∼10% of acute coronary syndromes with contemporary mortality rates up to 50%. In the meantime, percutaneous circulatory support devices, in particular venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), have emerged as an established salvage intervention for patients in cardiogenic shock. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation provides temporary circulatory support until other treatments are effective and enables recovery or serves as a bridge to ventricular assist devices, heart transplantation, or decision-making. In this critical care perspective, we provide a concise overview of VA-ECMO utilization in cardiogenic shock, considering rationale, critical care management, as well as weaning aspects. We supplement previous literature by focusing on therapeutic issues related to the vicious circle of retrograde aortic VA-ECMO flow, increased left ventricular (LV) afterload, insufficient LV unloading, and severe pulmonary congestion limiting prognosis in a relevant proportion of patients receiving VA-ECMO treatment. We will outline different modifications in percutaneous mechanical circulatory support to meet this challenge. Besides a strategy of running ECMO at lowest possible flow rates, novel therapeutic options including the combination of VA-ECMO with percutaneous microaxial pumps or implementation of a venoarteriovenous-ECMO configuration based on an additional venous cannula supplying towards pulmonary circulation are most promising among LV unloading and venting strategies. The latter may even combine the advantages of venovenous and venoarterial ECMO therapy, providing potent respiratory and circulatory support at the same time. However, whether VA-ECMO can reduce mortality has to be evaluated in the urgently needed, ongoing prospective randomized studies EURO-SHOCK (NCT03813134), ANCHOR (NCT04184635), and ECLS-SHOCK (NCT03637205). These studies will provide the opportunity to investigate indication, mode, and effect of LV unloading in dedicated sub-analyses. In future, the Heart Teams should aim at conducting a dedicated randomized trial comparing VA-ECMO support with vs. without LV unloading strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Lüsebrink E ，Orban M ，Kupka D ，Scherer C ，Hagl C ，Zimmer S ，Luedike P ，Thiele H ，Westermann D ，Massberg S ，Schäfer A ，Orban M ... -  《-》

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

Lüsebrink E ，Binzenhöfer L ，Hering D ，Villegas Sierra L ，Schrage B ，Scherer C ，Speidl WS ，Uribarri A ，Sabate M ，Noc M ，Sandoval E ，Erglis A ，Pappalardo F ，De Roeck F ，Tavazzi G ，Riera J ，Roncon-Albuquerque R Jr ，Meder B ，Luedike P ，Rassaf T ，Hausleiter J ，Hagl C ，Zimmer S ，Westermann D ，Combes A ，Zeymer U ，Massberg S ，Schäfer A ，Orban M ，Thiele H ... -  《-》

Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal life support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: surgical venting versus Impella device.

Patients in cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may experience severe complications from reduced left ventricular (LV) unloading and increased cardiac afterload. These effects are usually modified by adding a percutaneous direct Impella vent or surgical LV vent on top of VA-ECMO in selected patients. However, direct comparisons between 2 LV unloading strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction are lacking. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of these 2 different approaches. We enrolled 112 patients treated with an Impella or surgical LV vent during VA-ECMO support between January 2014 and February 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included rates of myocardial recovery or transition to durable mechanical circulatory support. Additionally, we assessed adverse events such as peripheral ischaemic complications requiring intervention, sepsis and ischaemic stroke. At 30 days, 38 patients in the Impella group (54%) and 26 patients in the surgical LV vent group (63%) had died (relative risk with Impella 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.30; P = 0.35). Impella group and the surgical LV vent group differed significantly with respect to the secondary end points including rates of myocardial recovery (24% and 7%, respectively; P = 0.022) and rates of durable mechanical circulatory support (17% and 42%, P = 0.012). Complication rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups. The use of Impella device as therapeutic unloading therapy during VA-ECMO did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality compared to surgical LV vent in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.

Radakovic D ，Zittermann A ，Knezevic A ，Razumov A ，Opacic D ，Wienrautner N ，Flottmann C ，Rojas SV ，Fox H ，Schramm R ，Morshuis M ，Rudolph V ，Gummert J ，Deutsch MA ... -  《-》

Clinical efficacy of direct or indirect left ventricular unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for primary cardiogenic shock.

Left ventricular (LV) distention is a feared complication in patients receiving venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). LV unloading can be achieved indirectly with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or directly with an Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, Mass). We sought to assess the clinical and hemodynamic effects of IABP and Impella devices on patients supported with VA ECMO. We conducted a retrospective review of VA ECMO patients at our institution from January 2015 to June 2020. Patients were categorized as either ECMO alone or ECMO with LV unloading. LV unloading was characterized as either ECMO with IABP or ECMO with Impella. We recorded baseline characteristics, survival, complications, and hemodynamic changes associated with device initiation. During the study, 143 patients received ECMO alone whereas 140 received ECMO with LV unloading (68 ECMO with IABP, 72 ECMO with Impella). ECMO with Impella patients had a higher incidence of bleeding events compared with ECMO alone or ECMO with IABP (52.8% vs 37.1% vs 17.7%; P < .0001). Compared with ECMO alone, ECMO with IABP patients had better survival at 180 days (log rank P = .005) whereas survival in ECMO with Impella patients was not different (log rank P = .66). In a multivariable Cox hazard analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.03; P = .015), male sex (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.80; P = .002), baseline lactate (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .004), baseline creatinine (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11; P = .032), need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.40-3.39; P = .001), and presence of pre-ECMO IABP (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.83; P = .010) were associated with reduced mortality. There was no significant difference in hemodynamic changes in the ECMO with IABP versus ECMO with Impella cohorts. Concomitant support with IABP might help reduce morbidity and improve 180-day survival in patients receiving VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock.

Char S ，Fried J ，Melehy A ，Mehta S ，Ning Y ，Kurlansky P ，Takeda K ... -  《-》