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

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Right Ventricular Failure

Right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality rates estimated as high as 70–75%. RV failure may occur following cardiac surgery in conjunction with left ventricular failure, or may be isolated in certain circumstances, such as inferior MI with RV infarction, pulmonary embolism or following left ventricular assist device placement. Medical management includes volume optimisation and inotropic and vasopressor support, and a subset of patients may benefit from mechanical circulatory support for persistent RV failure. Increasingly, percutaneous and surgical mechanical support devices are being used for RV failure. Devices for isolated RV support include percutaneous options, such as micro-axial flow pumps and extracorporeal centrifugal flow RV assist devices, surgically implanted RV assist devices and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, the authors discuss the indications, candidate selection, strategies and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for RV failure.

Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Assist Devices

Percutaneous mechanical assist devices are used in patients with cardiogenic shock. The purpose of this article is to familiarize critical care nurses with the various types of percutaneous mechanical assist devices, including the intra-aortic balloon pump, the Impella device, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and the TandemHeart device. Each type of device requires specific nursing care. In a patient with cardiogenic shock, the monitoring, care, and interventions provided by an experienced critical care nurse can make the difference between survival and death.

Impact of New UNOS Allocation Criteria on Heart Transplant Practices and Outcomes

Background

In October 2018, a new heart allocation policy was implemented with intent of prioritizing the sickest patients and decreasing waitlist time. We examined the effects of the new policy on transplant practices and outcomes 1 year before and 1 year after the change.

Methods

Transplant recipients from October 2017 to September 2019 at our institution were identified and divided into 2 cohorts, a preallocation and postallocation criteria change. Patient demographics, clinical data, and bridging strategy were assessed. Early outcomes including ischemic time, severe primary graft dysfunction, need for renal replacement therapy, and duration of hospital stay were investigated.

Results

In the 12 months before the change, 38 patients were transplanted as compared to 33 patients in the 12 months after the change. The average wait-time to transplant decreased after the allocation change (49 versus 313 d, P = 0.02). Patients were more likely to be bridged with an intra-aortic balloon pump (45% versus 3%) and less likely to be supported with a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) after the change (24% versus 82%). There was an increase in total ischemic time after the change (177 versus 117 min, P ≤ 0.01). There were no significant differences in other early posttransplant outcomes.

Conclusions

Implementation of the new allocation system for heart transplantation resulted in dramatic changes in the bridging strategy utilized at our institution. Temporary mechanical support usage increased following the change and the number of recipients supported with durable LVADs decreased. Early posttransplant outcomes appear similar.

Improved survival after heart transplantation in patients bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the new allocation system

BACKGROUND

Historically, patients bridged on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to heart transplantation (HT) have very high post-transplant mortality. In the new heart transplant allocation system, ECMO-supported patients have the highest priority for HT. However, data are lacking on the outcomes of these critically ill patients. We compared the waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of ECMO-supported patients in the new and old allocation systems.

METHODS

Adult patients supported by ECMO at the time of listing or transplantation who were registered in the United Network for Organ Sharing database between November 1, 2015 and September 30, 2019 were included. Clinical characteristics, outcomes in the waitlist, and post-transplant survival were compared between the old and new systems. Cox Proportional and subdistribution hazard regression models were used to evaluate the variables contributing to the post-transplant and waitlist outcomes RESULTS: A total of 296 ECMO-supported patients were listed for HT. Of these, 191 were distributed to the old system, and 105 were distributed to the new system. Patients listed in the new system had a higher cumulative incidence of HT (p < 0.001) and lower incidence of death or removal (p = 0.001) from the transplant list than patients listed in the old system. The 6-month survival after transplantation was 74.6% and 90.6% for the old- and new-era patients, respectively (p = 0.002). Among ECMO-supported patients, being listed or transplanted on the new system was independently associated with improved outcomes in the waitlist and after transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

With the implementation of the new heart transplant allocation system, ECMO-supported patients have a shorter waitlist time, improved frequency of HT, and improved short-term post-transplant survival.