Complications in patients with cardiogenic shock on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy: distribution and relevance. Results from an international, multicentre cohort study.

AIMS: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (VA-ECMO) restores circulation and tissue oxygenation in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients, but can also lead to complications. This study aimed to quantify VA-ECMO complications and analyse their association with overall survival as well as favourable neurological outcome (cerebral performance categories 1 + 2). METHODS AND RESULTS: All-comer patients with CS treated with VA-ECMO were retrospectively enrolled from 16 centres in four countries (2005-2019). Neurological, bleeding, and ischaemic adverse events (AEs) were considered. From these, typical VA-ECMO complications were identified and analysed separately as device-related complications. n = 501. Overall, 118 were women (24%), median age was 56.0 years, median lactate was 8.1 mmol/L. Acute myocardial infarction caused CS in 289 patients (58%). Thirty-days mortality was 40% (198/501 patients). At least one device-related complication occurred in 252/486 (52%) patients, neurological AEs in 108/469 (23%), bleeding in 192/480 (40%), ischaemic AEs in 123/478 (26%). The 22% of patients with the most AEs accounted for 50% of all AEs. All types of AEs were associated with a worse prognosis. Aside from neurological ones, all AEs and device-related complications were more likely to occur in women; although prediction of AEs outside of neurological AEs was generally poor. CONCLUSION: Therapy and device-related complications occur in half of all patients treated with VA-ECMO and are associated with a worse prognosis. They accumulate in some patients, especially in women. Aside from neurological events, identification of patients at risk is difficult, highlighting the need to establish additional quantitative markers of complication risk to guide VA-ECMO treatment in CS.

Use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence-based treatment for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non-ischaemic CS treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non-ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de-novo or acute-on-chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access-site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: In patients with non-ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30-day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.