Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Recovery or Bridge to Heart Replacement Therapy in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

Caring for Patients Requiring Venous Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Can Upstream Palliative Care Make a Difference?

OBJECTIVE

Palliative care consultation is relevant for patients requiring Venous-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO); however, evidence is limited to support its value. For this population, we compared length of stay (LOS) (primary outcome), operational metrics and goals of care (GOC) frequency before and after a collaboration between cardiothoracic (CT) surgery and Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine (GaP).

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients (18+) admitted to a quaternary center that required VA-ECMO between 2019-2021 and received GaP consultation. Demographics, LOS, times to consult, illness severity, GOC, and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

120 patients met inclusion criteria and 64 (53.3%) had GaP consultation. No differences were observed regarding demographics and insertion status (emergent vs elective). Median (IQR) days to GaP consult for 2019, 2020 and 2021 were 6.5 (4.0-14.5), 5.0 (2.0-11.0) and 3.0 (2.0-5.0), respectively (P = .006). Median days from insertion to consult for 2019, 2020 and 2021 were 6.0 (4.0-20.0), 3.0 (1.0-6.0) and 2.0 (1.0-4.0) (P = .003). Among survivors, over the 3-year course, median LOS was not statistically different. Between expired patients, median (IQR) LOS for 2019, 2020, and 2021 was 28.5 (23.0-40.0), 12.0 (8.0-14.0), 11.0 (5.0-17.0) days (P = .013). For patients not seen by GaP, 8 (14.3%) GOC notes were documented, compared with 42 (65.6%) for patients seen. Mortality was similar (53.6% vs 53.1% [GaP]).

CONCLUSION

For patient on VA-ECMO, early GaP consultation may improve hospital LOS and GOC rates. We suggest organizations consider early palliative integration when instituting mechanical circulatory support.

Long-term outcomes of patients bridged to recovery with venoarterial extracorporeal life support

OBJECTIVE

Our study examines the long-term outcomes of patients discharged from the hospital without heart replacement therapy (HRT) after recovery from cardiogenic shock using venoarterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 615 cardiogenic shock patients who recovered from VA-ECLS at our institution between January 2015 and July 2021. Of those, 166 patients (27.0%) who recovered from VA-ECLS without HRT were included in this study. Baseline characteristics, discharge labs, vitals, electrocardiograms and echocardiograms were assessed. Patients were contacted to determine vital status. The primary outcome was post-discharge mortality.

RESULTS

Of 166 patients, 158 patients (95.2%) had post-discharge follow-up, with a median time of follow-up of 2 years (IQR: [1 year, 4 years]). At discharge, the median ejection fraction (EF) was 52.5% (IQR: [32.5, 57.5]). At discharge, 92 patients (56%) were prescribed β-blockers, 28 (17%) were prescribed an ACE inhibitor, ARB or ARNI, and 50 (30%) were prescribed loop diuretics. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 1-year survival rate of 85.6% (95% CI: [80.1%, 91.2%]) and a 5-year survival rate of 60.6% (95% CI: [49.9%, 71.3%]). A Cox regression model demonstrated that a history of congestive heart failure (CHF) was strongly predictive of increased mortality hazard (HR = 1.929; p = 0.036), while neither discharge EF nor etiology of VA-ECLS were associated with increased post-discharge mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients discharged from the hospital after full myocardial recovery from VA-ECLS support without HRT should have close outpatient follow-up due to the risk of recurrent heart failure and increased mortality in these patients.

Patient selection for heart transplant: balancing risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart failure incidence continues to rise despite a relatively static number of available donor hearts. Selecting an appropriate heart transplant candidate requires evaluation of numerous factors to balance patient benefit while maximizing the utility of scarce donor hearts. Recent research has provided new insights into refining recipient risk assessment, providing additional tools to further define and balance risk when considering heart transplantation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent publications have developed models to assist in risk stratifying potential heart transplant recipients based on cardiac and noncardiac factors. These studies provide additional tools to assist clinicians in balancing individual risk and benefit of heart transplantation in the context of a limited donor organ supply.

SUMMARY

The primary goal of heart transplantation is to improve survival and maximize quality of life. To meet this goal, a careful assessment of patient-specific risks is essential. The optimal approach to patient selection relies on integrating recent prognostication models with a multifactorial assessment of established clinical characteristics, comorbidities and psychosocial factors.

The Surgeon's Role in Cardiogenic Shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock represents a very challenging patient population due to the undifferentiated pathologies presenting as cardiogenic shock, difficult decision-making, prognostication, and ever-expanding support options. The role of cardiac surgeons on this team is evolving.

RECENT FINDINGS

The implementation of a shock team is associated with improved outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. Early deployment of mechanical circulatory support devices may allow an opportunity to rescue these patients. Cardiothoracic surgeons are a critical component of the shock team who can deploy timely mechanical support and surgical intervention in selected patients for optimal outcomes.