Percutaneous versus surgical cannulation for femoro-femoral VA-ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock: Results from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry

Percutaneous cannulation is increasingly used for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). However, there is limited evidence about the benefit of this approach compared with conventional surgical cannulation. By using a large international database, this study was designed to co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of heart and lung transplantation 2022-04, Vol.41 (4), p.470-481
Hauptverfasser: Wang, Liangshan, Yang, Feng, Zhang, Shuai, Li, Chenglong, Du, Zhongtao, Rycus, Peter, Tonna, Joseph E., Alexander, Peta, Lorusso, Roberto, Fan, Eddy, Ogino, Mark, Brodie, Daniel, Combes, Alain, Chen, Yih-Sharng, Qiu, Haibo, Peng, Zhiyong, Fraser, John F., Shao, Juanjuan, Jia, Ming, Wang, Hong, Hou, Xiaotong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Percutaneous cannulation is increasingly used for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). However, there is limited evidence about the benefit of this approach compared with conventional surgical cannulation. By using a large international database, this study was designed to compare in-hospital outcomes in cardiac shock patients who received femoro-femoral VA-ECMO with percutaneous versus surgical cannulation. Adults with refractory cardiogenic shock treated with percutaneous (percutaneous group) or surgical (surgical group) femoro-femoral VA-ECMO between January 2008 and December 2019 were extracted from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between percutaneous cannulation and in-hospital outcomes. Among 12,592 patients meeting study inclusion, 9,249 (73%) underwent percutaneous cannulation. The proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous cannulation increased from 32% to 84% over the study period (p < 0.01 for trend). In-hospital mortality (53% vs 58%; p < 0.01), cannulation site bleeding (19% vs 22%; p < 0.01), and systemic infection (8% vs 15%; p < 0.01) occurred less frequently in the percutaneous group compared to the surgical group. In adjusted analyses, percutaneous cannulation was independently associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.70-0.84; p < 0.01), cannulation site bleeding (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.60-0.80; p < 0.01) and systemic infection (OR, 0.63; 95% CI 0.54-0.74; p < 0.01). Severe limb ischemia was more frequently observed in the percutaneous group (5% vs 3%; p < 0.01). However, this association was not significant in adjusted analysis (OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.93-1.62; p = 0.15). Compared with surgical cannulation, percutaneous cannulation was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality and fewer complications.
ISSN:1053-2498
1557-3117
DOI:10.1016/j.healun.2022.01.009