Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy and extracorporeal membranous oxygenation: A case series

ECMO in the Cardiac Catheterization Lab-Patient Selection Is Key

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged as a rescue intervention for hemodynamically unstable patients and prophylactic intraprocedural hemodynamic support in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The prompt initiation of ECMO provides immediate hemodynamic support and allows for the completion of bridging and/or life-saving interventions. However, there are no clinical practice guidelines for the use of extracorporeal support in this area. This review examines the role of patient selection and therapeutic intervention for extracorporeal support in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for high-risk pulmonary embolism (HRPE) with haemodynamic instability or profound cardiogenic shock has been reported. Guidelines currently support the use of ECMO only in patients with cardiac arrest or circulatory collapse and in conjunction with other curative therapies. We aimed to characterise the mortality of adults with HRPE treated with ECMO, identify factors associated with mortality, and compare different adjunct curative therapies.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching four international databases from their inception until 25 June 2023 for studies reporting on more than five patients receiving ECMO for HRPE. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A subgroup analysis investigating the outcomes with curative treatment for HRPE was also performed. The intra-study risk of bias and the certainty of evidence were also assessed. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022297518).

RESULTS

A total of 39 observational studies involving 6409 patients receiving ECMO for HRPE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled mortality was 42.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37.2% to 48.7%, moderate certainty). Patients treated with ECMO and catheter-directed therapy (28.6%) had significantly lower mortality (p < 0.0001) compared to those treated with ECMO and systemic thrombolysis (57.0%). Cardiac arrest prior to ECMO initiation (regression coefficient [B]: 1.77, 95%-CI: 0.29 to 3.25, p = 0.018) and pre-ECMO heart rate (B: -0.076, 95%-CI: -0.12 to 0.035, p = 0.0003) were significantly associated with mortality. The pooled risk ratio when comparing mortality between patients on ECMO and those not on ECMO was 1.51 (95%-CI: 1.07 to 2.14, p < 0.01) in favour of ECMO. The pooled mortality was 55.2% (95%-CI: 47.7% to 62.6%), using trim-and-fill analysis to account for the significant publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 50% of patients receiving ECMO for HRPE survive. While outcomes may vary based on the curative therapy used, early ECMO should be considered as a stabilising measure when treating patients with HRPE. Patients treated concurrently with systemic thrombolysis have higher mortality than those receiving ECMO alone or with other curative therapies, particularly catheter-directed therapies. Further studies are required to explore ECMO vs. non-ECMO therapies in view of currently heterogenous datasets.

Prognostic Value of Pulmonary Artery Oxygen Saturation in Pulmonary Embolism Requiring Endovascular Intervention

This retrospective study evaluates the prognostic value of pulmonary artery oxygen saturation (PA O2) among patients who undergo mechanical intervention for pulmonary embolism (PE). Patients who died within 90 days had less PA O2, and a greater percentage of patients with a PA O2 of <50 died within 90 days of intervention. Regression analysis revealed an association of PA O2 with mortality that held true despite accounting for Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score and type of endovascular intervention. Receiver operator curve testing revealed PA O2 <50% to be inferior to PESI score but superior to Bova score in predicting mortality after mechanical PE intervention, with the combination of PA O2 <50% and PESI outperforming PESI and PA O2 in predicting mortality. Our pilot evaluation suggests preintervention PA O2 <50% to be associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and may help identify patients at greatest risk of deterioration.

Comparison of Large-Bore Thrombectomy With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism

Background

There is significant debate on whether large-bore thrombectomy (LBT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is superior for the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) while employing an early invasive strategy through endovascular therapies.

Methods

Between 2018 and 2021, 147 patients who presented to our institution with acute intermediate- or high-risk PE and had undergone PE Response Team-guided endovascular intervention with either LBT (Inari FlowTriever) or CDT (EKOSonic) were retrospectively reviewed. Data on the patients' clinical characteristics, comorbidities, serum biomarkers, hemodynamics, and imaging characteristics were obtained. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcomes were all-cause readmission, readmission for PE, and length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. The safety outcome of procedure-related bleeding was evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the cumulative event rate. Multivariate Cox-proportional hazard regression and inverse propensity weighting were used to adjust for confounders.

Results

The median age of the patients was 63 (IQR, 53-73) years, and 48.3% of the patients were women. Patients in the LBT group had a higher PE Severity Index score (LBT vs CDT: median, 132 vs 108; P = .015) and greater prevalence of malignancy (LBT vs CDT: median, 22.7% vs 6%; P = .011). After propensity matching for baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (LBT vs CDT: median, 15.8% vs 9.1%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.21-1.98; P = .442) for up to 1 year. The secondary outcomes or safety end points were also similar between the 2 interventions. An exploratory analysis showed elevated PE Severity Index scores, lower systolic blood pressures, and higher lactic acid levels to be associated with an increased risk of early death at 30 days.

Conclusions

In this retrospective cohort study, there was no significant difference in the cumulative event rate of all-cause mortality between LBT and CDT. Further studies are needed to evaluate the use of LBT versus CDT versus noninvasive therapy to understand outcomes and appropriate patient selection among those with intermediate- and high-risk PE.