Multicenter evaluation of left ventricular assist device implantation with or without ECMO bridge in cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remains unclear, and recipients of the more contemporary HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD are not well represented in previous studies. We therefore undertook a multicenter, retrospective study of this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: INTERMACS 1 LVAD recipients from five U.S. centers were included. In-hospital and one-year outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was the overall mortality hazard comparing ECMO versus non-ECMO patients by propensity-weighted survival analysis. Secondary outcomes included survival by LVAD type, as well as postoperative and one-year outcomes. One hundred and twenty-seven patients were included; 24 received ECMO as a bridge to LVAD. Mortality was higher in patients bridged with ECMO in the primary analysis (HR 3.22 [95%CI 1.06-9.77], p = 0.039). Right ventricular assist device was more common in the ECMO group (ECMO: 54.2% vs non-ECMO: 11.7%, p < 0.001). Ischemic stroke was higher at one year in the ECMO group (ECMO: 25.0% vs non-ECMO: 4.9%, p = 0.006). Among the study cohort, one-year mortality was lower in HM3 than in HeartMate II (HMII) or HeartWare HVAD (10.5% vs 46.9% vs 31.6%, respectively; p < 0.001) recipients. Pump thrombosis at one year was lower in HM3 than in HMII or HVAD (1.8% vs 16.1% vs 16.2%, respectively; p = 0.026) recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Higher mortality was observed with ECMO as a bridge to LVAD, likely due to higher acuity illness, yet acceptable one-year survival was seen compared with historical rates. The receipt of the HM3 was associated with improved survival compared with older generation devices.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Multialarm Emergency: A High-Fidelity Simulation Case for Emergency Medicine Residents.

Introduction: As left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) become more prevalent in the treatment of patients with end-stage heart failure, emergency physicians must become experts in the management and resuscitation of patients with LVADs. As with other high-acuity, low-occurrence scenarios, managing the unstable LVAD patient makes for an ideal topic for simulation-based resident education. Methods: By incorporating a high-fidelity HeartMate 3 LVAD task trainer, our program developed and executed a novel LVAD simulation activity for our emergency medicine resident physicians. In the scenario, a 65-year-old male with recent LVAD placement arrived at a community hospital with undifferentiated hypotension. Various device alarms activated during the scenario and required intervention. Ultimately, the patient was found to be in septic/hypovolemic shock and only survived with appropriate resuscitation. We implemented a postscenario survey to assess the effectiveness of the simulation activity and administered it to 27 residents. Results: Content and delivery of our simulation were found to be effective; all survey questions regarding content and delivery obtained a mean score of 4.5 or greater on a 5-point Likert scale. Residents reported an overall high level of confidence in achieving most of the skill-based learning objectives (most scores > 4.1). The two objectives with the lowest confidence ratings were troubleshooting an LVAD and its various alarms (3.8) and demonstrating the ability to assess an LVAD patient (3.9). Discussion: Our LVAD simulation activity was successful and also revealed several potential areas for future research and simulation improvement.

Survival and Outcomes After Cardiac Arrest With VA-ECMO Rescue Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with cardiac arrest is increasing. Utilization remains variable between centers using ECMO as a rescue therapy or early protocolized extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective evaluation of cardiac arrest with cardiopulmonary resuscitation and rescue ECMO support from 2011 through 2019. Study objectives included survival, non-neurologic, and neurologic outcomes; validation of the SAVE and modified SAVE (mSAVE) scores for survival and favorable neurologic outcome; and predictive factor identification in cardiac arrest with ECMO rescue therapy. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included. In-hospital survival was 38.2% and median CPC score was 2. Survivors had lower BMI (27.9 ±â€Š4.2 kg/m2 vs. 32.3 ±â€Š7.5 kg/m2, P = 0.003), less obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) (26.5% vs. 49.1%, P = 0.035), shorter CPR duration (35.5 ±â€Š31.7 m vs. 58.0 ±â€Š49.5 m, P = 0.019), more tracheostomy (38.2% vs. 7.3%, P < 0.001), and less renal replacement therapy (RRT) (17.6% vs. 38.2%, P = 0.031). Patients with a favorable neurologic outcome had lower body weight (86.2 ±â€Š17.9 kg vs. 98.1 ±â€Š19.4 kg, P = 0.010), lower BMI (28.1 ±â€Š4.5 kg/m2 vs. 33.9 ±â€Š7.9 kg/m2, P < 0.001), and less obesity (29.7% vs. 56.3%, P = 0.026). mSAVE score predicted in-hospital survival (OR 1.11; 95%CI 1.03-1.19; P = 0.004) and favorable neurologic outcome (OR 1.11; 1.03-1.20; P = 0.009). Multivariate analysis for in-hospital survival included mSAVE, BMI, CPR-time, tracheostomy, and RRT (c-statistic: 0.864). Favorable neurologic outcome included mSAVE and BMI (c-statistic: 0.805). CONCLUSIONS: mSAVE, BMI, RRT, and tracheostomy are predictors of in-hospital survival and mSAVE and BMI are predictors of favorable neurologic outcome in cardiac arrest with ECMO rescue therapy.