Abstract
Background
The introduction of veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (v-a ECLS) widens the spectrum of patients that can be included in the heart transplant program, some examples are extended myocardial infarction, fulminant myocarditis or advanced cardiac insufficiency. In addition to this, the implementation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) extends even more the range of patients that can be benefitted of this therapy as a bridge to transplant.
Purpose
Our objective is to describe the incidence of v-a ECLS in those patients submitted to a heart transplant and to establish whether or not this technique increases the risk of mortality in this population.
Methods
Retrospective and descriptive statistical analysis of 82 consecutive patients submitted to heart transplant between 2015 and 2019 in a High Technology University Hospital.
Demographic and clinical data, extracorporeal life support, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and assistance device type, together with survival at 30 days and one year were collected.
Results
82 patients were transplanted during the study period distributed as follows:
47 (51.69%) were elective and 35 (48.1%) emergent being 25 (30.12%) of grade 1A and 10 (12.19%) of grade 1B. 52% had prior intra-aortic balloon contrapulsation.
Patients transplanted under ECLS were 80% men and average age of 53 (SD 15) years old. The most prevalent diagnosis was acute myocardial infarction Killip IV (32%), followed by terminal heart failure (28%).
32% of the patients were under peripheral ECMO, 36% under left ventricular assistance, 20% under biventricular assist device, and 12% required ECPR. 72% of devices were implanted in the operating room and 16% in the ICU.
The one-year survival of the sample was 88%. 2 patients died after transplantation (8%) during the first month, and 1 patient died within the first year. All three patients had terminal heart failure and the VAD implant was inserted electively
Conclusions
ECLS prior to cardiac transplantation allow selected patients to arrive alive to the transplant. The choice among devices is related to the diagnosis and expected duration of the therapy but we have not found in our series effects on subsequent mortality. Survival at one year in the subjects analysed is greater than the national registry of the last 10 years, although the tendency is to improve every year.
This new scenario implies an increment of the complexity in the management of these patients and requires an special effort in terms of staff ratio and training. In our centre, the implementation of ECLS resulted in an increment of our staff and formative sessions.
Funding Acknowledgement
Type of funding source: None
One-Year Experience With a Mobile Extracorporeal Life Support Service
