Feasibility and Outcomes of a Cardiovascular Medicine Inclusive Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Service
Raef A Fadel,Mohamed Ramzi Almajed,Austin Parsons,Jasmeet Kalsi,Muthanna Shadid,Mohamed Maki,Mohammad Alqarqaz,Herb Aronow,Jennifer Cowger,Brittany Fuller,Tiberio Frisoli,Gillian Grafton,Henry Kim,Crystal Jones,Gerald Koenig,Akshay Khandelwal,Hassan Nemeh,Brian O'Neill,Daizo Tanaka,Celeste Williams,Pedro Villablanca,William O'Neill,Khaldoon Alaswad,Mir Babar Basir
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2024.101359
2024-03-22
Abstract:Background: There has been a significant increase in the utilization of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in recent years. Cardiothoracic surgery teams have historically led VA-ECMO care teams, with little data available on alternative care models. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a cardiovascular medicine inclusive VA-ECMO service, analyzing patients treated with peripheral VA-ECMO at a large quaternary care center from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was death while on VA-ECMO or within 24 hours of decannulation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predictors of the primary outcome. Results: Two hundred forty-four patients were included in the analysis (median age 61 years; 28.7% female), of whom 91.8% were cannulated by interventional cardiologists, and 84.4% were managed by a cardiology service comprised of interventional cardiologists, cardiac intensivists or advanced heart failure cardiologists. Indications for VA-ECMO included acute myocardial infarction (34.8%), decompensated heart failure (30.3%), and refractory cardiac arrest (10.2%). VA-ECMO was utilized during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in 26.6% of cases, 48% of which were peri-procedural arrest. Of the patients, 46% survived to decannulation, the majority of whom were decannulated percutaneously in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. There was no difference in survival following cannulation by a cardiac surgeon vs interventional cardiologist (50% vs 45%; P = .90). Complications included arterial injury (3.7%), compartment syndrome (4.1%), cannulation site infection (1.2%), stroke (14.8%), acute kidney injury (52.5%), access site bleeding (16%) and need for blood transfusion (83.2%). Elevated baseline lactate (odds ratio [OR], 1.13 per unit increase) and sequential organ failure assessment score (OR, 1.27 per unit increase) were independently associated with the primary outcome. Conversely, an elevated baseline survival after VA ECMO score (OR, 0.92 per unit increase) and 8-hour serum lactate clearance (OR, 0.98 per % increase) were independently associated with survival. Conclusions: The use of a cardiovascular medicine inclusive ECMO service is feasible and may be practical in select centers as indications for VA-ECMO expand.