Association Between Shock Etiology and 5-Year Outcomes After Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Acute kidney injury and cardiogenic shock severity for mortality risk stratification in patients supported with VA ECMO

AIMS

To assess the stage of acute kidney injury (AKI), as an index of organ perfusion, combined with shock severity, measured by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stage classification, to stratify the risk of mortality in patients diagnosed with cardiogenic shock (CS) and supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO).

METHODS ANS RESULTS

From January 2018 to December 2020, consecutive adult patients diagnosed with CS and received VA ECMO were retrospectively evaluated. The highest AKI stage within 48 h after ECMO initiation was assessed using the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria. We included 216 patients with a mean age of 58.8 years and 31.0% were females. 88.4% of patients received ECMO for postcardiotomy, while 11.6% for medical CS. The total in-hospital mortality was 53.2%. AKI occurred in 182 (84.3%) patients receiving ECMO for CS. AKI stage 0, 1, 2, and 3 were present in 15.7%, 17.6%, 18.1%, and 48.6% of patients with in-hospital mortality of 26.5%, 26.3%, 61.5%, and 68.6%, respectively (P < 0.001). The AKI stage (P < 0.001), SCAI shock stage before ECMO (P = 0.008), and NYHA ≥ Class III on admission (P = 0.044) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.754 (95% confidence interval: 0.690 to 0.811) for AKI stage combined with SCAI shock stage was better than those for AKI stage (0.676), SCAI shock stage (0.657), serum lactate level (0.682), SOFA score (0.644), SVAE score (0.582), and VIS score (0.530) prior to ECMO.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center CS population who received VA ECMO for circulatory support, predominantly postcardiotomy cases, AKI occurred in 84.3% of the patients. AKI stage, as an index of organ perfusion combined with shock severity measured by the SCAI shock classification, demonstrates a good correlation with in-hospital mortality.

Management of cardiogenic shock: a narrative review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is characterized by low cardiac output and sustained tissue hypoperfusion that may result in end-organ dysfunction and death. CS is associated with high short-term mortality, and its management remains challenging despite recent advances in therapeutic options. Timely diagnosis and multidisciplinary team-based management have demonstrated favourable effects on outcomes. We aimed to review evidence-based practices for managing patients with ischemic and non-ischemic CS, detailing the multi-organ supports needed in this critically ill patient population.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Editor-in-Chief's Top Picks From 2023

Each week, I record audio summaries for every paper in JACC, as well as an issue summary. This process has become a true labor of love due to the time they require, but I am motivated by the sheer number of listeners (16M+), and it has allowed me to familiarize myself with every paper that we publish. Thus, I have selected the top 100 papers (Original Investigations, Review Articles, Society Documents, and the Global Burden of Diseases) from distinct specialties each year. In addition to my personal choices, I have included papers that have been the most accessed or downloaded on our websites, as well as those selected by the JACC Editorial Board members. In order to present the full breadth of this important research in a consumable fashion, we will present these abstracts in this issue of JACC, as well as their Central Illustrations∗ and podcasts. The highlights comprise the following sections: Aorta; Basic and Translational Science; Cardiac Failure, Myocarditis, and Pericarditis; Cardiomyopathies and Genetics; Congenital Heart Disease; Coronary, Peripheral, and Structural Interventions; Coronavirus; Health Promotion and Preventive Cardiology; Imaging; Metabolic and Lipid Disorders; Neurovascular Disease and Dementia; Rhythm Disorders and Thromboembolism; and Valvular Heart Disease.1-104 ∗ To view the full manuscript, including the full-sized Central Illustration, please refer to the original publication in JACC.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Systems in Fulminant Myocarditis: Recent Advances and Outlook

Background: Fulminant myocarditis (FM) constitutes a severe and life-threatening form of acute cardiac injury associated with cardiogenic shock. The condition is characterised by rapidly progressing myocardial inflammation, leading to significant impairment of cardiac function. Due to the acute and severe nature of the disease, affected patients require urgent medical attention to mitigate adverse outcomes. Besides symptom-oriented treatment in specialised intensive care units (ICUs), the necessity for temporary mechanical cardiac support (MCS) may arise. Numerous patients depend on these treatment methods as a bridge to recovery or heart transplantation, while, in certain situations, permanent MCS systems can also be utilised as a long-term treatment option. Methods: This review consolidates the existing evidence concerning the currently available MCS options. Notably, data on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), microaxial flow pump, and ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation are highlighted within the landscape of FM. Results: Indications for the use of MCS, strategies for ventricular unloading, and suggested weaning approaches are assessed and systematically reviewed. Conclusions: Besides general recommendations, emphasis is put on the differences in underlying pathomechanisms in FM. Focusing on specific aetiologies, such as lymphocytic-, giant cell-, eosinophilic-, and COVID-19-associated myocarditis, this review delineates the indications and efficacy of MCS strategies in this context.

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.