Echocardiographic Prediction of Successful Weaning From Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Weaning from venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support fails in 30% to 70% of patients. OBJECTIVE: To explore the utility of echocardiographic parameters in predicting successful disconnection from VA-ECMO. METHODS: Patients receiving VA-ECMO in a referral hospital were included. The relationships between echocardiographic parameters during the weaning trial and weaning success (survival > 24 hours after VA-ECMO explant and no death from cardiogenic shock, heart failure, or cardiac arrest during the hospital stay) and survival were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 85 patients included, 61% had successful weaning. Parameters significantly related to weaning success were higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; 40% in patients with weaning success vs 30% in patients with weaning failure, P = .01), left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (15 cm vs 11 cm, P = .01), aortic valve opening in every cycle (98% vs 91% of patients, P = .01), and normal qualitative right ventricular function (60% vs 42% of patients, P = .02). The LVEF remained as an independent predictor of weaning success (hazard ratio, 0.938; 95% CI, 0.888-0.991; P = .02). An LVEF >33.4% was the optimal cutoff value to discriminate patients with successful weaning (area under the curve, 0.808; sensitivity, 93%; specificity, 72%) and was related to higher survival at discharge (60% vs 20%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Among weaning trial echocardiographic parameters, LVEF was the only independent predictor of successful VA-ECMO weaning. An LVEF >33.4% was the optimal cutoff value to discriminate patients with successful weaning and was related to final survival.

Short-term mechanical circulatory support in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Age over 70 years seems to confer poor prognosis for patients under mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Advanced age is usually a relative contraindication. Our objective was to assess the impact of age on survival of patients with short-term MCS. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of ≥70-year-old patients supported with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or Impella CP® due to cardiogenic shock and other situations of hemodynamic instability in a referral hospital (elderly group), compared with younger patients (<70 years). We analyze factors associated with survival in elderly group. RESULTS: Out of 164 short-term MCS implants from 2013 to October 2020, 45 (27.4%) correspond to ≥70-year-old patients (73.3% VA-ECMO; 26.7% Impella CP®), 80% as bridge to recovery and 15.6% for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We found no significant differences in complications developed between both groups. Survivals at discharge (40% vs. 43.7%, p = 0.403) and at follow-up (median 13.6 [30] months) were similar in elderly and young patients (35.6% vs. 37.8%, log-rank p = 0.061). Predictive factors of mortality in elderly patients were peripheral artery disease (p = 0.037), higher lactate (p = 0.003) and creatinine (p = 0.035) at implant, longer cardiac arrest (p = 0.003), and worse post-implantation left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.003). Patients with indication of MCS for high-risk PCI had higher survival compared to other indications (p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Short-term MCS with VA-ECMO or Impella CP® in elderly patients may be a reasonable option in hemodynamic compromise situations as bridge to recovery or elective high-risk PCI, without a significant increase in complications or mortality. Age should not be an absolute contraindication, but careful selection of candidate patients is necessary.

Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator support.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common long-term outcome after intensive care of critical illness. OBJECTIVES: Assess the prevalence and factors associated to PTSD after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of admission data and cross-sectional assessment of PTSD symptoms in adult survivors from admission requiring VA-ECMO support in a referral hospital. People were screened through abbreviated Impact of Event Scale-6 (IES-6). RESULTS: Out of 135 VA-ECMO implants performed from 2013 to 2020, 48 (35.6%) patients survived the admission. After a median follow-up of 31.4 [36] months, 34 survivors responded the questionnaire. All patients required sedation and invasive mechanical ventilation. Up to 29.4% of patients had PTSD symptoms. Patients with altered IES-6 items had passed a longer time since admission in ICCU (44±15 vs 30±20 months, p = 0.034). No baseline characteristic or admission-related variables were correlated with IES-6 except the lower time under mechanical ventilation (6.5 [8.5] vs. 8.5 [21] days, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Survivors from admission requiring VA-ECMO support show high prevalence of PTSD symptoms, appearing more frequently when more time has elapsed since admission. Special attention should be paid to psychological symptoms after VA-ECMO support.

Levosimendan in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator supported patients: Impact on the success of weaning and survival.

Weaning failure and mortality rates in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) supported patients are significant. Small studies suggest the possible usefulness of levosimendan in this environment, especially in postcardiotomy shock. We performed a retrospective analysis of VA-ECMO implants in a referral hospital comparing weaning failure and survival of patients treated with levosimendan with a control group. From 2013 to May 2020, 123 VA-ECMO for several indications were implanted. Levosimendan was administered in 23 patients (18.7%) with good tolerance. Levosimendan was used more frequently in cardiogenic shock due to acute coronary syndrome indication, and in patients with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at the implant. No significant differences were found in success of ECMO weaning (60.9% levosimendan group vs. 44% non-levosimendan group, P = .169) despite worse LVEF in levosimendan group. Survival at follow-up (20.6 [58] months) was higher in the group that received levosimendan, although without finding statistically significant differences (47.8% vs. 32.0%, log rank P = .124). Levosimendan can be safely administered during VA-ECMO support. Patients receiving levosimendan were weaned similarly from circulatory support despite worse LVEF. Its use did not influence in short- and medium-term survival. Randomized studies are needed to evaluate the levosimendan impact in this indication.