Abstract:Background An increasing number of adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) present with heart failure (HF), which may require short- or long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS), often around cardiac surgery or other interventions. Even though MCS has entered ACHD practice over the last few years, little is known on its indications and outcomes in this population. Purpose To assess the use and outcomes of short-term MCS in ACHD patients in a specialist centre, and assess the predictive power of the Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (SAVE) score in this population. Methods Data on all ACHD patients who received MCS since 2008 in a single tertiary centre were collected. Immediate, short and longer-term outcomes were also collected, including death, complications, and weaning success. Logistic regression and ROC analysis were performed to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Result There were 65 episodes of MCS in 63 patients during the study period: age 36.9+-13.6 years, 61.5% male. Most patients had CHD of moderate or severe complexity (49.2% moderate and 10.8% severe according to ESC guidelines). The most common anatomical diagnoses were left outflow tract obstruction in 35.4%, Marfan syndrome in 20.0% and tetralogy of Fallot or pulmonary atresia in 10.8%. The most common indications for ECMO were perioperative support (not endocarditis) in 55.6%, HF in 14.3%, pneumonia in 12.7% and endocarditis-related surgery in 7.9%. A critical preoperative status was present in 26.8%; median PEACH score (a validated ACHD peri-operative risk score) was 1.0[1.0-3.0] and ACHS score was 0.6[0.6-1.0]. Median SAVE score was -4.0[-9.0–2.0], with 21(43.8%) in SAVE class 4 or 5. VA-ECMO was used in 69.2%, VV-ECMO in 21.5%, BiVAD-ECMO in 4.6% and RVAD support in 4.6% of patients. The median duration of ECMO support was 198.6[133.0-354.2] hours. Complications included ischemic stroke (15.4%), intracerebral bleeding (9.2%), and other thromboembolism (23.8%). Successful weaning was achieved in 56.2%, whereas 4.6% were switched to more definitive MCS. In-hospital mortality was 47.7%, and this was higher in patients receiving VA support (OR 4.92, 95%CI:1.32-23.93, p=0.03). For patients on VA-ECMO or BiVAD support, the presence of Marfan syndrome (OR 4.92, 95%CI:1.32-23.93, p=0.03) and a lower (worse) SAVE score (OR 1.3 per point reduction, 95%CI:1.11-1.59, p=0.004) were associated with in-hospital mortality. An adjusted SAVE score that accounted for the presence of heritable thoracic aortic diseases (HTAD, -3 points) performed well at predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC increasing from 0.73 to 0.8, Figure). Conclusions Short-term MCS is a useful temporary rescue intervention in patients with ACHD, as a bridge to recovery or durable support, with 1 in 2 patients surviving to hospital discharge. The SAVE score adjusted for HTAD can reliably predict outcomes in patients with VA-ECMO and requires external validation.Figure

Early temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: Real-life data from a regional cardiac assistance network

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

Temporary circulatory support for cardiogenic shock

Early vs. Delayed Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in acute cardiogenic shock: A subgroup-specific systematic review

Clinical application of mechanical circulatory support in the treatment of heart failure

Temporal trends in incidence, causes, use of mechanical circulatory support and mortality in cardiogenic shock

Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Different Mechanical Hemodynamic Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock or High-Risk Pci: a Network Meta-Analysis of Thirty-Seven Trials

Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

A prospective registry to get insights into profile, management and outcome of cardiogenic shock patients

MONOCENTRIC EXPERIENCE FROM A CARDIOGENIC SHOCK NETWORK: ROLE OF ECLS IN REFRACTORY CARDIOGENIC SHOCK, KEY TO SURVIVAL OR BRIDGE TO ADVANCED HEART FAILURE THERAPIES

Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: updates from recent studies

Short-term mechanical circulatory support in adults with congenital heart disease: indications and outcomes

Single-centre experience with the Thoratec paracorporeal ventricular assist device for patients with primary cardiac failure

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support As Treatment For Cardiogenic Shock: Treatment Strategies And Analysis Of Risk Factors

Predictors of Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock despite Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: Opportunities for Advanced Mechanical Circulatory Support in Asia

Complication Rates Of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support In Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Prognostic Factors Associated with Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Complications and Outcomes in 39,864 Patients Receiving Standard Care Plus Mechanical Circulatory Support or Standard Care Alone for Infarct-Associated Cardiogenic Shock