Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support in Heart Transplant and Ventricle Assist Device Centres. Meta-analysis.

AIMS: Because reported mortality on veno-arterial (V-A) extracorporeal life support (ECLS) substantially varies between centres, the aim of the current analysis was to assess the outcomes between units performing heart transplantation and/or implanting ventricular assist device (HTx/VAD) vs. non-HTx/VAD units in patients undergoing V-A ECLS for cardiogenic shock. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE databases until 30 November 2019. Articles reporting in-hospital/30-day mortality and centre's HTx/VAD status were included. In-hospital outcomes and long-term survival were analysed in subgroup meta-analysis. A total of 174 studies enrolling n = 13 308 patients were included with 20 series performed in non-HTx/VAD centres (1016 patients, 7.8%). Majority of patients underwent V-A ECLS for post-cardiotomy shock (44.2%) and acute myocardial infarction (20.7%). Estimated overall in-hospital mortality was 57.2% (54.9-59.4%). Mortality rates were higher in non-HTx/VAD [65.5% (59.8-70.8%)] as compared with HTx/VAD centres [55.8% (53.3-58.2%)], P < 0.001. Estimated late survival was 61.8% (55.7-67.9%) without differences between non-HTx/VAD and HTx/VAD centres: 66.5% (30.3-1.02%) vs. 61.7% (55.5-67.8%), respectively (P = 0.797). No differences were seen with respect to ECLS duration, limb complications, and reoperations for bleeding, kidney injury, and sepsis. Yet, weaning rates were higher in HTx/VAD vs. non-HTx/VAD centres: 58.7% (56.2-61.1%) vs. 48.9% (42.0-55.9%), P = 0.010. Estimated rate of bridge to heart transplant was 6.6% (5.2-8.3%) with numerical, yet not statistically significant, difference between non-HTx/VAD [2.7% (0.8-8.3%)] as compared with HTx/VAD [6.7% (5.3-8.6%)] (P = 0.131). CONCLUSIONS: Survival after V-A ECLS differed according to centre's HTx/VAD status. Potentially different risk profiles of patients must be taken account for before definite conclusions are drawn.

The impact of Centre's heart transplant status and volume on in-hospital outcomes following extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS) that is refractory to inotropic support remains a major concern in cardiac surgery and is almost universally fatal unless treated with mechanical support. While reported mortality rates on ECMO vary from center to center, aim of the current report is assess if the outcomes differ between centres according to volume and heart transplantation status. METHODS: A systematic search was performed according to PRISMA statement using PubMed/Medline databases between 2010 and 2018. Relevant articles were scrutinized and included in the meta-analysis only if reporting in-hospital/30-day mortality and heart transplantation status of the centre. Paediatric and congenital heart surgery-related studies along with those conducted in the setting of veno-venous ECMO for respiratory distress syndrome were excluded. Differences were assessed by means of subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies enrolling N = 4421 ECMO patients were included. Of those, 6 series were performed in non-HTx centres (204 pts.;4.6%). Overall 30-day survival (95% Confidence Intervals) was 35.3% (32.5-38.2%) and did not statistically differ between non-HTx: 33.3% (26.8-40.4%) and HTx centres: 35.7% (32.7-38.8%); Pinteraction = 0.531. There was no impact of centre volume on survival as well: ßcoef = 0.0006; P = 0.833. No statistical differences were seen between HTx and non-HTx with respect to ECMO duration, limb complications, reoperations for bleeding, kidney injury and sepsis. There were however significantly less neurological complications in the HTx as compared to non-HTx centres: 11.9% vs 19.5% respectively; P = 0.009; an inverse relationship was seen for neurologic complications in centres performing more ECMOs annually ßcoef = - 0.0066; P = 0.031. Weaning rates and bridging to HTx and/or VADs were higher in HTx facilities. CONCLUSIONS: There was no apparent difference in survival after ECMO implantation for refractory PCS according to centre's ECMO volume and transplantation status. Potentially different risk profiles of patients in these centres must be taken account for before definite conclusions are drawn.

Baseline surgical status and short-term mortality after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for post-cardiotomy shock: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: While reported mortality rates on post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation vary from center to center, impact of baseline surgical status (elective/urgent/emergency/salvage) on mortality is still unknown. METHODS: A systematic search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement using PubMed/Medline databases until March 2018 using the keywords "postcardiotomy," "cardiogenic shock," "extracorporeal membrane oxygenation," and "extracorporeal life support." Relevant articles were scrutinized and included in the meta-analysis only if reporting in-hospital/30-day mortality and baseline surgical status. The correlations between mortality and percentage of elective/urgent/emergency cases were investigated. Inference analysis of baseline status and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation complications was conducted as well. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (conducted between 1993 and 2017) enrolling N = 2,235 post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients were found. Patients were mostly of non-emergency status (65.2%). Overall in-hospital/30-day mortality event rate (95% confidence intervals) was 66.7% (63.3-69.9%). There were no differences in in-hospital/30-day mortality with respect to baseline surgical status in the subgroup analysis (test for subgroup differences; p = 0.406). Similarly, no differences between mortality in studies enrolling <50 versus ⩾50% of emergency/salvage cases was found: respective event rates were 66.9% (63.1-70.4%) versus 64.4% (57.3-70.8%); p = 0.525. Yet, there was a significant positive association between increasing percentage of emergency/salvage cases and rates of neurological complications (p < 0.001), limb complications (p < 0.001), and bleeding (p = 0.051). Incidence of brain death (p = 0.099) and sepsis (p = 0.134) was increased as well. CONCLUSION: Other factors than baseline surgical status may, to a higher degree, influence the mortality in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock. Baseline status, however, strongly influences the complication occurrence while on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.