Device Strategies for Patients in INTERMACS Profiles 1 and 2 Cardiogenic Shock: Double Bridge With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Initial Implant of More Durable Devices

Risk stratification of patients listed for heart transplantation while supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

OBJECTIVES

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used to support patients in severe cardiogenic shock. In the absence of recovery, these patients may need to be listed for heart transplant (HT), which offers the best long-term prognosis. However, posttransplantation mortality is significantly elevated in patients who receive ECMO. The objective of the present study was to describe and risk-stratify different profiles of patients listed for HT supported by ECMO.

METHODS

Patients listed for HT in the United Network for Organ Sharing database were analyzed. The primary outcome was 1-year survival and was assessed in patients bridged to transplant with ECMO (ECMO_BTT) and patients who were previously supported on ECMO but had it removed before HT (ECMO_REMOVED).

RESULTS

Among 65,636 adult candidates listed for HT (between 2001 and 2017), 712 were supported on ECMO, 292 of whom (41%) underwent HT (ECMO_BTT, n = 202; ECMO_REMOVED, n = 90). Most of the patients with ECMO_REMOVED were transplanted with a ventricular assist device. In ECMO_BTT, recipient age (each 10-year increase), time on the waitlist (both defined as minor risk factors), need for dialysis, and need for mechanical ventilation (both defined as major risk factors) were independent predictors of mortality. ECMO_REMOVED and ECMO_BTT with no risk factors showed 1-year survival comparable to that in patients who were never supported on ECMO. Compared with patients who were never on ECMO, patients in ECMO_BTT group with minor risk factors, 1 major risk factor, and 2 major risk factors had ~2-, ~5-, and >10-fold greater 1-year mortality, respectively (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The HT recipients in the ECMO_REMOVED and ECMO_BTT groups with no risk factors showed similar survival as the HT recipients who were never supported on ECMO. In the ECMO_BTT group, posttransplantation mortality increased significantly with increasing risk factors.

Empfehlungen der S3-Leitlinie (AWMF) „Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen“

In den vergangenen Jahren hat der Einsatz mechanischer Unterstützungssysteme für Patienten mit Herz- und Kreislaufversagen kontinuierlich zugenommen, sodass in Deutschland mittlerweile jährlich etwa 3000 ECLS-/ECMO-Systeme implantiert werden. Vor dem Hintergrund bislang fehlender umfassender Leitlinien bestand ein dringlicher Bedarf an der Formulierung evidenzbasierter Empfehlungen zu den zentralen Aspekten der ECLS-/ECMO-Therapie. Im Juli 2015 wurde daher die Erstellung einer S3-Leitlinie durch die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Thorax-, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie (DGTHG) bei der zuständigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V. (AWMF) angemeldet. In einem strukturierten Konsensusprozess mit Einbindung von Experten aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, delegiert aus 11 AWMF-Fachgesellschaften, 5 weiteren Fachgesellschaften sowie der Patientenvertretung, entstand unter Federführung der DGTHG die Leitlinie „Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen“, die im Februar 2021 publiziert wurde. Die Leitlinie fokussiert auf klinische Aspekte der Initiierung, Fortführung, Entwöhnung und Nachsorge und adressiert hierbei auch strukturelle und ökonomische Fragestellungen. Dieser Artikel präsentiert eine Übersicht zu der Methodik und den konsentierten Empfehlungen.

Empfehlungen der S3-Leitlinie (AWMF) Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen

In den vergangenen Jahren hat der Einsatz mechanischer Unterstützungssysteme für Patienten mit Herz- und Kreislaufversagen kontinuierlich zugenommen, sodass in Deutschland mittlerweile jährlich etwa 3000 ECLS/ECMO-Systeme implantiert werden. Vor dem Hintergrund bislang fehlender umfassender Leitlinien bestand ein dringlicher Bedarf an der Formulierung evidenzbasierter Empfehlungen zu den zentralen Aspekten der ECLS/ECMO-Therapie.

Im Juli 2015 wurde daher die Erstellung einer S3-Leitlinie durch die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Thorax-, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie (DGTHG) bei der zuständigen Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e. V. (AWMF) angemeldet. In einem strukturierten Konsensusprozess mit Einbindung von Experten aus Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, delegiert aus 11 AWMF-Fachgesellschaften, 5 weiteren Fachgesellschaften sowie der Patientenvertretung, entstand unter Federführung der DGTHG die Leitlinie „Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen“, die im Februar 2021 publiziert wurde.

Die Leitlinie fokussiert auf klinische Aspekte der Initiierung, Fortführung, Entwöhnung und Nachsorge und adressiert hierbei auch strukturelle und ökonomische Fragestellungen. Dieser Artikel präsentiert eine Übersicht zu der Methodik und den konsentierten Empfehlungen.

Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure -A clinical practice Guideline Level 3

Aims Worldwide applications of extracorporeal circulation for mechanical support in cardiac and circulatory failure, which are referred to as extracorporeal life support (ECLS) or veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va‐ECMO), have dramatically increased over the past decade. In spite of the expanding use and the immense medical as well as socio‐economic impact of this therapeutic approach, there has been a lack of interdisciplinary recommendations considering the best available evidence for ECLS treatment.

Methods and Results In a multiprofessional, interdisciplinary scientific effort of all scientific societies involved in the treatment of patients with acute cardiac and circulatory failure, the first evidence‐ and expert consensus‐based guideline (level S3) on ECLS/ECMO therapy was developed in a structured approach under regulations of the AWMF (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany) and under use of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. This article presents all recommendations created by the expert panel, addressing a multitude of aspects for ECLS initiation, continuation, weaning and aftercare as well as structural and personnel requirements.

Conclusions This first evidence‐ and expert consensus‐based guideline (level S3) on ECLS/ECMO therapy should be used to apply the best available care nationwide. Beyond clinical practice advice, remaining important research aspects for future scientific efforts are formulated.

[Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure : Short version of the S3 guideline]

In Germany, a remarkable increase regarding the usage of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) systems has been observed in recent years with approximately 3000 ECLS/ECMO implantations annually since 2015. Despite the widespread use of ECLS/ECMO, evidence-based recommendations or guidelines are still lacking regarding indications, contraindications, limitations and management of ECMO/ECLS patients. Therefore in 2015, the German Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS) registered the multidisciplinary S3 guideline "Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure" to develop evidence-based recommendations for ECMO/ECLS systems according to the requirements of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). Although the clinical application of ECMO/ECLS represents the main focus, the presented guideline also addresses structural and economic issues. Experts from 17 German, Austrian and Swiss scientific societies and a patients' organization, guided by the GSTCVS, completed the project in February 2021. In this report, we present a summary of the methodological concept and tables displaying the recommendations for each chapter of the guideline.

[Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure : Short version of the S3 guideline]

In Germany, a remarkable increase regarding the usage of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) systems has been observed in recent years with approximately 3000 ECLS/ECMO implantations annually since 2015. Despite the widespread use of ECLS/ECMO, evidence-based recommendations or guidelines are still lacking regarding indications, contraindications, limitations and management of ECMO/ECLS patients. Therefore in 2015, the German Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS) registered the multidisciplinary S3 guideline "Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure" to develop evidence-based recommendations for ECMO/ECLS systems according to the requirements of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). Although the clinical application of ECMO/ECLS represents the main focus, the presented guideline also addresses structural and economic issues. Experts from 17 German, Austrian and Swiss scientific societies and a patients' organization, guided by the GSTCVS, completed the project in February 2021. In this report, we present a summary of the methodological concept and tables displaying the recommendations for each chapter of the guideline.

Impact of the Pre-Transplant Circulatory Supportive Strategy on Post-Transplant Outcome: Double Bridge May Work

Background: The number of waitlisted patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to heart transplantation is increasing. The data concerning the results of the double-bridge strategy are limited. We sought to investigate the post-transplant outcomes across the different bridge strategies. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a heart transplantation database from Jan 2009 to Jan 2019. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and ventricular assist devices (VAD) were the MCS that we investigated. The pre- and post-transplant characteristics and variables of patients bridged with the different types of MCS were collected. The post-transplant survival was compared using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Results: A total of 251 heart transplants were reviewed; 115 without MCS and 136 with MCS. The patients were divided to five groups: Group 1 (no MCS): n = 115; Group 2 (IABP): n = 15; Group 3 (ECMO): n = 33; Group 4 (ECMO-VAD): double-bridge (n = 59); Group 5 (VAD): n = 29. Survival analysis demonstrated that the 3-year post-transplant survival rates were significantly different among the groups (Log-rank p < 0.001). There was no difference in survival between group 4(ECMO-VAD) and group 1(no MCS)1 (p = 0.136), or between group 4(ECMO-VAD) and group 5(VAD) (p = 0.994). Group 3(ECMO) had significantly inferior 3-year survival than group 4(ECMO-VAD) and group 5(VAD). Conclusion: Double bridge may not lead to worse mid-term results in patients who could receive a transplantation. Initial stabilization with ECMO for critical patients before implantation of VAD might be considered as a strategy for obtaining an optimal post-transplant outcome.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in INTERMACS-1 patients

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used as destination therapy or as a bridge to future cardiac transplant in patients with end-stage heart failure. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be used to bridge patients in cardiogenic shock or with decompensated heart failure to durable mechanical circulatory support. We assessed outcomes in patients in critical cardiogenic shock (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support [INTERMACS] profile 1) who underwent implantation of a continuous-flow (CF)-LVAD, with or without preoperative ECMO bridging. For this retrospective study, we selected INTERMACS profile 1 patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation at our institution between Sep 1, 2004 and Nov 30, 2018. Of 768 patients identified, 133 (17.3%) were INTERMACS profile 1; 26 (19.5%) received preoperative ECMO support, and 107 (80.5%) did not. Postimplantation outcomes were compared between the ECMO and no-ECMO groups. No significant differences were found in 30-day mortality (15.4 vs. 15.9%, P = 0.95) or survival at 1 year (53.8 vs. 60.9%, P = 0.51). Three patients who received ECMO before CF-LVAD implantation subsequently underwent cardiac transplant. In the ECMO group, the lactate level 1 day after ECMO initiation was lower in survivors than nonsurvivors (2.7 ± 2.2 vs. 7.4 ± 4.2 mmol/L, P = 0.02; area under the curve = 0.85, P = 0.01) after CF-LVAD implantation. Bridging with ECMO to CF-LVAD implantation in carefully selected INTERMACS profile 1 patients (those who are at the highest risk for critical cardiogenic shock and for whom palliation may be the only other option) produced acceptable postoperative outcomes.Field of research: Artificial lung/ECMO.

Risk Scores in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Refractory Cardiogenic Shock and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Although many risk models have been tested in patients implanted by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), few scores assessed patients’ prognosis in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with refractory cardiogenic shock. We aimed at assessing the performance of risk scores, notably the prEdictioN of Cardiogenic shock OUtcome foR AMI patients salvaGed by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE) score, for predicting mortality in this particular population. This retrospective observational study included patients admitted to Tours University Hospital for STEMI with cardiogenic shock and requiring hemodynamic support by VA-ECMO. Among the fifty-one patients, the 30-day and 6-month survival rates were 63% and 56% respectively. Thirty days after VA-ECMO therapy, probabilities of mortality were 12, 17, 33, 66, 80% according to the ENCOURAGE score classes 0–12, 13–18, 19–22, 23–27, and ≥28, respectively. The ENCOURAGE score (AUC of the Receiving Operating Characteristic curve = 0.83) was significantly better compared to other risk scores. The hazard ratio for survival at 30 days for each point of the ENCOURAGE score was 1.10 (CI 95% (1.06, 1.15); p < 0.001). Decision curve analysis indicated that the ENCOURAGE score had the best clinical usefulness of the tested risk scores and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test suggested an accurate calibration. Our data suggest that the ENCOURAGE score is valid and the most relevant score to predict 30-day mortality after VA-ECMO therapy in STEMI patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. It may help decision-making teams to better select STEMI patients with shock for VA-ECMO therapy.

Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients

Purpose

Prognosis of patients presenting with INTERMACS 1 critical cardiogenic shock is generally poor. The aim of our study was to investigate the results of CentriMag™ extracorporeal short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to decision in patients presenting with critical cardiogenic shock in our unit.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed 63 consecutive patients from January 2005 to June 2017, who were treated with a CentriMag™ device at our institution as a bridge to decision. Patients requiring extracorporeal support for post-cardiotomy shock and for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplantation were excluded.

Results

Patients’ median age was 44 years (IQR 31–52, range 15.4–62.0) and 42 (67%) were male. Primary diagnosis at presentation was ischaemic cardiomyopathy (n = 24; 38.1%), viral myocarditis (n = 19; 30.2%), idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 8; 12.7%), and others (n = 12; 19%). The median duration of support was 25 (IQR 9.5–56) days. A total of 7 (11%) patients were supported with peripheral veno-arterial (VA) extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), 6 (9%) with central VA ECMO, 8 (13%) with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), 17 (27%) with biventricular assist device (BiVAD), and 25 (40%) with ECMO and then converted to BiVAD. Overall, 22 (34.9%) patients died while on CentriMag™ mechanical circulatory support. Complications included bleeding requiring reoperation/intervention in 24 (38%), renal failure requiring dialysis in 29 (46%), bacterial infections in 23 (37%), fungal infections in 15 (24%), critical limb ischaemia in 6 (10%), and stroke in 8 (13%). The overall survival to successful explant from CentriMag™ was 65.1% (n = 41) and survival to hospital discharge was 58.7% (n = 37). Of these, 10 (16%) had cardiac recovery and were successfully explanted, 20 (32%) were bridged to heart transplantation, 11 (17%) were bridged to long-term left ventricular assist device, 3 (4.7%) were later on transplanted, and 1 (1.6%) recovered to decommissioning. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 55%, 46%, and 23% respectively.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate an excellent outcome with the use of the CentriMag™ device in this seriously ill population. Despite requiring multiple procedures, over 58% of patients were discharged from hospital with 5-year survival of 46%.

Outcomes of VA-ECMO with and without Left Centricular (LV) Decompression Using Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (IABP) versus Other LV Decompression Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Left ventricular decompression is the primary method for solving VA-ECMO-induced LV afterload increase, but the effect of specific methods on patient outcomes and complications is unknown.

Material/Methods

We searched for all published reports conducted in patients undergoing ECMO combined with LVD. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 12.0.

Results

The results showed that the risk of death with ECMO combined with LVD was 29% lower than that with ECMO alone (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.56–0.89, I²=59.5%, P<0.001). Although the risk of death with ECMO combined other LV decompression techniques was higher than that with ECMO combined with IABP, the difference was not statistically significant (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.86–1.87, I²=44.0%, P=0.057). In addition, the ORs values of hemorrhage, stroke/acute episodes, lower-limb ischemia, and hemolysis for ECMO combined with LVD were 0.69 (0.66–0.71), 0.82 (0.78–0.89), 0.71 (0.30–1.66), and 0.48 (0.16–1.39), respectively. The risk of complications, such as stroke/TIA, limb ischemia, and hemolysis, of ECMO combined with IABP was lower than that of ECMO combined other LV decompression techniques, and the risk of bleeding was higher for ECMO combined with IABP.

Conclusions

ECMO combined with LVD is more beneficial than using ECMO alone and helps to lower patient mortality.

Outcomes with temporary mechanical circulatory support before minimally invasive centrifugal left ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND

Despite improved survival and morbidity after durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD), outcomes for cardiogenic shock patients are suboptimal. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) can permit optimization before dLVAD. Excellent outcomes have been observed using minimally-invasive dLVAD implantation. However, some feel tMCS contraindicates this approach. To evaluate whether left thoracotomy/hemisternotomy (LTHS) dLVAD placement is safe in this setting, we compared patients who did and did not require tMCS.

METHODS

Outcomes for patients receiving dLVADs via LTHS were compared among those bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or no tMCS. We evaluated demographics, comorbidities, laboratory and hemodynamic data, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients underwent LTHS dLVAD placement. Fifty did not require tMCS, while 22 (26%) required IABP, and 11 (13%) ECMO. Non-tMCS patients were primarily Intermacs 3 (56%), while IABP recipients were mainly Intermacs 2 (45%). All patients with ECMO were Intermacs 1. Patients with tMCS had worse end-organ function. Operative outcomes were similar except more concomitant procedures and red-cell transfusions in patients with ECMO. Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and inotrope duration were also similar. There were no differences in bleeding, stroke, and infection rates. Three- and 12-month survival were: no tMCS: 94%, 86%; IABP: 100%, 88%; and ECMO: 81%, 81% (P = .45).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with cardiogenic shock can safely undergo LTHS dLVAD implantation after stabilization with ECMO or IABP. Outcomes and complications in these patients were comparable to a less severely ill cohort without tMCS.

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.

Implication of Ventricular Assist Devices in Extracorporeal Membranous Oxygenation Patients Listed for Heart Transplantation

The new allocation criteria classify patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (VA-ECMO) as the highest priority for receiving orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) especially if they are considered not candidates for ventricular assist devices. The outcomes of patients who receive ventricular assist devices (VADs) after being listed for heart transplantation with VA-ECMO is unknown. We analyzed 355 patients listed for OHT with VA-ECMO from the United Network for Organ Sharing database from 2006 to 2014. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were used to determine the contribution of prognostic variables to the outcome. Thirty-three patients (9.3%) received VADs (15 dischargeable, 7 non-dischargeable VADs). The VAD and non-VAD groups had similar listing characteristics except that the VAD group were more likely to have non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (48.5% vs. 25.2%), and less likely to be obese (6.1% vs. 25.2%) or have a history of prior organ transplant (3% vs. 31.1%). Patients who underwent VAD implantation had more days on the list (median 189 vs. 14 days) compared to the non-VAD group. Amongst the patients who had VADs, (25/33) 75.5% patients were subsequently transplanted with similar post-transplant survival compared to the non-VAD group (72% vs. 60.5%; p = 0.276). Predictors of one-year post-transplant mortality included panel reactive antibodies (PRA) class I ≥ 20%, recipient smoking history, increased serum creatinine and total bilirubin. Therefore, a small proportion of patients listed for transplantation with VA ECMO undergo VAD implantation. Their waitlist survival is better than non-VAD group but with similar post-transplant survival.

Clinical characteristics and survival in cardiogenic shock admissions to a UK heart transplant unit

AIM

We describe the characteristics and outcomes of cardiogenic shock (CS) admissions to a UK transplant unit, which is previously unreported.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Fifty-nine unselected, consecutive patients over a 38-month period in CS (INTERMACS ≤2) and potentially eligible for transplant were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly male (76.3%), young (mean age 42.2 years) and with severe end-organ dysfunction (acute liver/kidney injury 83%, mean lactate 3.5 mmol/l). 57.6% required mechanical support and 28.8% cardiac transplant. 30 days, discharge and 1-year survival were 78, 68 and 63%, respectively. Predictors of death included no transplant, increasing age and increasing creatinine.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CS and potential for transplant require significant resource input but demonstrate favorable outcomes in our experience.

ECMO and Short-term Support for Cardiogenic Shock in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Trials done previously have shown that IABP does not improve survival in cardiogenic shock compared to medical treatment, and that neither Impella 2.5 nor TandemHeart improves survival compared to IABP. The "IMPRESS in severe shock" trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing ECMO with IABP showed 33% improved 30-day survival with ECMO (risk difference 33%; 95% CI 14-52%; p = 0.0008; NNT 3). ECMO is indicated in medically refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO can be considered in cardiogenic shock patients with estimated mortality of more than 50%. ECMO is probably the MCS of choice in cardiogenic shock with; biventricular failure, respiratory failure, life-threatening arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.

VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock in the contemporary era of heart transplantation: Which patients should be urgently transplanted?

With the impending United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy giving VA-ECMO supported heart transplant (HT) candidates highest priority status (Tier 1), identifying patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) with severe and irreversible heart failure (HF) appropriate for urgent HT is critically important. In a center where wait times currently preclude this approach, we retrospectively reviewed 119 patients (ages 18-72) with CS from 1/2014 to 12/2016 who required VA-ECMO for >24 hours. Underlying aetiologies included postcardiotomy shock (45), acute coronary syndromes (33), and acute-on-chronic HF (16). Eighty-four percent of patients (100) had ≥1 contraindication to HT with 61.3% (73) having preexisting contraindications (eg, multiorgan dysfunction and substance abuse), and 68.1% (81) experienced preclusive complications (eg, renal failure, coagulopathy, and infection). Potential HT candidates were significantly more likely to survive to discharge (potential HT candidates 84.2% vs preexisting contraindications 43.8% vs contraindications developing on VA-ECMO 33.3%, P = 0.001). Among potential HT candidates, 11 (68.8%) were discharged without advanced therapies and 4 received durable left ventricular assist device (25.0%). Importantly, 1-year survival was 100% for the 11 patients with follow-up. Thus, further work is critical to define appropriate candidates for HT from VA-ECMO while avoiding preemptive transplantation in those with otherwise favorable outcomes.

Further options and survival results after failure following extracorporeal life support implantation

BACKGROUND

A retrospective study was designed to analyze the outcome of patients with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) who needed a consecutive cardiac or pulmonary support system.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2016, 93 out of 587 patients with their age ranging from 2.4 to 77.3 years required an exchange of an ECLS by another mechanical support system. Sixty-one patients were inhospital cases, 39 patients were referred with ECLS from other institutions by ambulance car (N.=15) or helicopter (N.=24). Sixty-five patients came from internal medicine wards, of which 38 patients had CPR, whereas 24 patients suffered postcardiotomy failure with CPR in 11 cases. Ten patients were referred from other hospitals for failure to wean from ECLS.

RESULTS

Leading symptoms were continuing cardiac failure in 43 patients (46%) and ongoing respiratory failure after cardiac recovery in 50 patients (54%). Patients with cardiac failure underwent implantation of a ventricular assist device (N.=36) or remained on long-term ECLS (N.=7) until a donor organ for heart transplantation was available (mean waiting time 43 days). Respiratory failure was treated by veno-venous ECMO (N.=34) or vav-ECMO (N.=16). Overall inhouse survival was 50.5% (N.=47). Only 22.6% of patients (N.=21) died during ongoing support. In contrast, 26.9% of patients (N.=25) deceased 35+/-51 days after weaning from vv- or vav-ECMO. Major reasons of death were multi-organ failure in 16 patients, cerebral hypoxia in 12 patients, sepsis in 10 patients, and intractable ow output in 5 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a switch from ECLS to another mechanical support system, survival remains limited as irreversible multi-organ failure and sepsis still jeopardize the patients' life.

Artificial Organs 2017: A Year in Review

In this Editor's Review, articles published in 2017 are organized by category and summarized. We provide a brief reflection of the research and progress in artificial organs intended to advance and better human life while providing insight for continued application of these technologies and methods. Artificial Organs continues in the original mission of its founders "to foster communications in the field of artificial organs on an international level." Artificial Organs continues to publish developments and clinical applications of artificial organ technologies in this broad and expanding field of organ Replacement, Recovery, and Regeneration from all over the world. Peer-reviewed Special Issues this year included contributions from the 12th International Conference on Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support Systems and Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Perfusion edited by Dr. Akif Undar, Artificial Oxygen Carriers edited by Drs. Akira Kawaguchi and Jan Simoni, the 24th Congress of the International Society for Mechanical Circulatory Support edited by Dr. Toru Masuzawa, Challenges in the Field of Biomedical Devices: A Multidisciplinary Perspective edited by Dr. Vincenzo Piemonte and colleagues and Functional Electrical Stimulation edited by Dr. Winfried Mayr and colleagues. We take this time also to express our gratitude to our authors for offering their work to this journal. We offer our very special thanks to our reviewers who give so generously of time and expertise to review, critique, and especially provide meaningful suggestions to the author's work whether eventually accepted or rejected. Without these excellent and dedicated reviewers the quality expected from such a journal could not be possible. We also express our special thanks to our Publisher, John Wiley & Sons for their expert attention and support in the production and marketing of Artificial Organs. We look forward to reporting further advances in the coming years.

The future of cardiac transplantation

The first human-to-human heart transplant was performed 50 years ago in 1967. Heart transplantation has now entered an era of tremendous growth and innovation. The future of heart transplantation is bright with the advent of newer immunosuppressive medications and strategies that may even result in tolerance. Much of this progress in heart transplant medicine is predicated on a better understanding of acute and chronic rejection pathways through basic science studies. The future will also include personalized medicine where genomics and molecular science will dictate customized treatment for optimal outcomes. The introduction of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices has changed the landscape for patients with severe heart failure to stabilize the most ill patient and make them better candidates for heart transplant. As ex vivo preservation takes hold, we may witness an expansion of the donor pool through the use of donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors. In addition, further geographical donor heart sharing through ex vivo preservation may further decrease waitlist mortality by enabling longer distance donor hearts to be allocated for the sickest waitlist patient. It is no doubt an exciting time to be involved in the field of heart transplantation. In this perspective, we will summarize the present state of heart transplantation and discuss various innovations that are being pursued.

Changing our Approach to Stage D Heart Failure

Despite the tremendous progress made in the management of heart failure (HF), many patients reach advanced stages. This paper aims to present a practical approach to the stage D HF patient who is no longer responding to optimal medical therapy. We discuss all available therapies for this patient population. We also offer some important caveats with regard to identification, risk stratification, evaluation and treatment including early patient referral to a center with an advanced HF program. Given the changing landscape of heart transplantation and an impending change in the allocation system, we also intend to engage a discussion on the need for a paradigm shift towards left ventricular assist device therapy in this population.

[Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill neonates and children]

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is used as a last resort during neonatal and pediatric resuscitation in case of refractory circulatory or respiratory failure under maximum conventional therapies. Different types of ECMO can be used depending on the initial failure. The main indications for ECMO are refractory respiratory failure (acute respiratory distress syndrome, status asthmaticus, severe pneumonia, meconium aspiration syndrome, pulmonary hypertension) and refractory circulatory failure (cardiogenic shock, septic shock, refractory cardiac arrest). The main contraindications are a gestational age under 34 weeks or birth weight under 2kg, severe underlying pulmonary disease, severe immune deficiency, a neurodegenerative disease and hereditary disease of hemostasis. Neurological impairment can occur during ECMO (cranial hemorrhage, seizure or stroke). Nosocomial infections and acute kidney injury are also frequent complications of ECMO. The overall survival rate of ECMO is about 60 %. This survival rate can change depending on the initial disease: from 80 % for meconium aspiration syndrome to less than 10 % for out-of-hospital refractory cardiac arrest. Recently, mobile ECMO units have been created. These units are able to perform ECMO out of a referral center for untransportable critically ill patients.