Arterial and venous vascular complications in patients requiring peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Christoph Fisser,Corina Armbrüster,Clemens Wiest,Alois Philipp,Maik Foltan,Dirk Lunz,Karin Pfister,Roland Schneckenpointner,Christof Schmid,Lars S. Maier,Thomas Müller,Matthias Lubnow
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.960716
IF: 3.9
2022-07-28
Frontiers in Medicine
Abstract:Introduction The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of arterial and venous complications in patients requiring peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and its risk factors at the time of cannulation and during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support and to assess vascular complications in association with decannulation. Material and methods Between January 2010 to January 2020, out of 1,030 eligible patients requiring VA-ECMO, 427 with analyzable vascular screening were included. Duplex sonography and/or CT scan after decannulation were used to screen for thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as well as arterial complications. Near-infrared spectrometry (NIRS) was established at the time of cannulation and was continuously monitored during the ECMO therapy. Results The prevalence of venous complications was 27%. Thrombosis and pulmonary embolism were observed in 21 and 7% of patients, respectively. Pulmonary embolism was more frequently diagnosed in patients with thrombosis (22 vs. 3%, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, cannulation in the jugular vein was determined as a risk factor for venous thrombosis in contrast to the extent of anticoagulation. The prevalence of arterial complications was 37%, mainly ischemia followed by bleeding, dissection, and compartment syndrome. Vascular surgery was necessary for 19% of the patients, of whome 1% required major amputations. A distal perfusion cannula (DPC) was implanted at cannulation in 24% of patients and secondarily in 16% of patients after cannulation as required during ECMO support. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors for leg ischemia at the time of cannulation were elevated D-dimers, lower NIRS on the cannulated leg, and lack of a DPC. The best discriminative parameter was the difference in NIRS between the non-cannulated leg and the cannulated leg. In contrast, during ECMO support, only the lack of a DPC was associated with leg ischemia. A similar rate of complications associated with decannulation, mainly arterial thrombosis, ischemia, or bleeding, was seen with percutaneous and surgical approaches (18 vs. 17%, p = 0.295). Conclusion Patients requiring VA ECMO should be routinely screened for vascular complications. The decision to insert a DPC should be evaluated individually. However, NIRS monitoring of the cannulated leg and the non-cannulated leg is essential to identify the legs at risk for critical ischemia. As complications associated with decannulation were equally distributed between percutaneous and surgical approaches, the applied method may be chosen according to local experience.
medicine, general & internal