scholarly journals Outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley R. Wilson-Smith ◽  
Yulia Bogdanova ◽  
Stephanie Roydhouse ◽  
Kevin Phan ◽  
David H. Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Perfusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026765912110425
Author(s):  
Daochao Huang ◽  
Anyi Xu ◽  
QiongChan Guan ◽  
Jie Qin ◽  
Chuang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Va Ecmo ◽  
Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock

Objective: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is currently recommended as a strategy to address the increased afterload in patients who received venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The benefit of VA-ECMO with IABP in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is inconclusive. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the influence of VA-ECMO with IABP for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS). Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched for all articles published from 1 January, 1964 to July 11, 2020. Retrospective cohort studies targeting the comparison of VA-ECMO with IABP and isolated VA-ECMO were included in this study. Results: We included 2251 patients in the present study (917 patients in the VA-ECMO with IABP group and 1334 patients in the isolated VA-ECMO group). Deaths occurred in 589 of 917 patients (64.2%) in the VA-ECMO with IABP group and occurred in 885 of 1334 patients (66.3%) in isolated VA-ECMO group. Pooling the results of all studies showed that VA-ECMO with IABP was not related to a reduced in-hospital mortality in patients who received VA-ECMO for PCS (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86–1.04; p = 0.231). In addition, VA-ECMO with IABP was not related to an increased rate of VA-ECMO weaning in patients who received VA-ECMO for PCS (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.99–1.66; p = 0.058). Conclusions: This study indicates that VA-ECMO with IABP did not improve either in-hospital survival or weaning for VA-ECMO in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy of left ventricular unloading strategies during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pengbin Zhang ◽  
Shilin Wei ◽  
Kerong Zhai ◽  
Jian Huang ◽  
Xingdong Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Va Ecmo

Abstract Background: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been widely used for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). A common side-effect of this technic is the resultant increase in left ventricular (LV) afterload which could potentially aggravate myocardial ischemia, delay ventricular recovery, and increase the risk of pulmonary congestion. Several LV unloading strategies have been proposed and implemented to mitigate these complications. However, it is still indistinct that which one is the best choice for clinical application. The objective of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) is to summarize the evidence and compare the efficacy of different LV unloading strategies during VA-ECMO.Methods: We will perform a systematic search to identify random controlled trials and cohort studies comparing different LV unloading strategies during VA-ECMO. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) will be explored from their inception to 31 December 2020. The primary outcome will be in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes will include neurological complications, hemolysis, bleeding, limb ischemia, renal failure, gastrointestinal complications, sepsis, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit, and hospital stays. Pairwise and network meta-analysis will respectively be conducted using Stata (V.16, StataCorp) and Aggregate Data Drug Information System (ADDIS V.1.16.5), and the cumulative probability will be used to rank the included LV unloading strategies. The risk of bias will be conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool or Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) according to their study design. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment will be performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be conducted to explore the quality of evidence.Discussion: This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) will address the problem that which strategy could achieve left ventricular (LV) unloading most effectively during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and increase cardiogenic shock patient survival benefit, and will provide evidence for clinical decision-making.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registry number: CRD42020165093.

scholarly journals Biventricular Unloading with Impella and Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Severe Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: Implications from the Combined Use of the Devices and Prognostic Risk Factors of Survival

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 747
Author(s):  
Georgios Chatzis ◽  
Styliani Syntila ◽  
Birgit Markus ◽  
Holger Ahrens ◽  
Nikolaos Patsalis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Lactate Levels ◽  
Va Ecmo

Since mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have become integral component in the therapy of refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS), we identified 67 patients in biventricular support with Impella and venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for RCS between February 2013 and December 2019 and evaluated the risk factors of mortality in this setting. Mean age was 61.07 ± 10.7 and 54 (80.6%) patients were male. Main cause of RCS was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (74.6%), while 44 (65.7%) were resuscitated prior to admission. The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) score on admission was 73.54 ± 16.03 and 12.25 ± 2.71, respectively, corresponding to an expected mortality of higher than 80%. Vasopressor doses and lactate levels were significantly decreased within 72 h on biventricular support (p < 0.05 for both). Overall, 17 (25.4%) patients were discharged to cardiac rehabilitation and 5 patients (7.5%) were bridged successfully to ventricular assist device implantation, leading to a total of 32.8% survival on hospital discharge. The 6-month survival was 31.3%. Lactate > 6 mmol/L, vasoactive score > 100 and pH < 7.26 on initiation of biventricular support, as well as Charlson comorbity index > 3 and prior resuscitation were independent predictors of survival. In conclusion, biventricular support with Impella and VA-ECMO in patients with RCS is feasible and efficient leading to a better survival than predicted through traditional risk scores, mainly via significant hemodynamic improvement and reduction in lactate levels.

scholarly journals Efficacy of left ventricular unloading strategies during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e047046
Author(s):  
Pengbin Zhang ◽  
Shilin Wei ◽  
Kerong Zhai ◽  
Jian Huang ◽  
Xingdong Cheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Va Ecmo

IntroductionVenoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been widely used for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. A common side effect of this technic is the resultant increase in left ventricular (LV) afterload which could potentially aggravate myocardial ischaemia, delay ventricular recovery and increase the risk of pulmonary congestion. Several LV unloading strategies have been proposed and implemented to mitigate these complications. However, it is still indistinct that which one is the best choice for clinical application. This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to compare the efficacy of different LV unloading strategies during VA-ECMO.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be explored from their inception to 31 December 2020. Random controlled trials and cohort studies that compared different LV unloading strategies during VA-ECMO will be included in this study. The primary outcome will be in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes will include neurological complications, haemolysis, bleeding, limb ischaemia, renal failure, gastrointestinal complications, sepsis, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stays. Pairwise and NMA will respectively be conducted using Stata (V.16, StataCorp) and Aggregate Data Drug Information System (V.1.16.5), and the cumulative probability will be used to rank the included LV unloading strategies. The risk of bias will be conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool or Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale according to their study design. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment will be performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be conducted to explore the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEither ethics approval or patient consent is not necessary, because this study will be based on literature. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165093.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document