Multidisciplinary shock team is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing ECPR.

OBJECTIVES: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) has been increasingly used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in select patients. Few centers have published their experience or outcomes with ECPR. The aim of our study was to evaluate outcomes of adult patients in cardiac arrest placed on VA ECMO in the catheterization laboratory. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients in refractory cardiac arrest who underwent ECPR at the Minneapolis Heart Institute (MHI) at Abbott Northwestern Hospital from January 2012 to December 2017. Relevant data were obtained from electronic medical records, including arrest to ECMO flow time, total ECMO support time, and outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six adult patients underwent ECPR at the study site during the defined time period. Seven patients (27%) sustained cardiac arrest out of hospital, 19 patients arrested in-hospital with eight of those occurring in the catheterization laboratory. Seventeen (65%) patients had initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia (VF/VT). All patients underwent mechanical CPR with LUCAS device. Overall 30 day and 6 month survival was 69%. Median time from arrest to ECMO flow was 46 mins (21,68) vs 61 mins (36,71) in survivors and non-survivors, respectively. Sixteen of 18 survivors discharged with a CPC score of 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that adult patients in cardiac arrest initiated on VA ECMO in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and cared for by a multidisciplinary shock team in the critical care unit have superior long-term survival and functionally favorable neurologic recovery when compared to current literature.

Clinical outcomes associated with sedation and analgesia in patients supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Sedatives and analgesics are frequently used in critically ill adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit, but optimal agent selection and dosing in patients supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation remain poorly defined. This retrospective study evaluated whether sedative and analgesic agent selection and dosing had any impact on clinical outcomes after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation. The primary endpoint of our study was the incidence of delirium within 48 h after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation in patients who received an empiric ⩾50% sedation reduction of benzodiazepines (N = 22, group 2) compared to those who did not (N = 10, group 1) and those who required no sedatives within 24 h prior to venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation (N = 21, group 3). Secondary endpoints included time to extubation after decannulation, need for tracheostomy after decannulation, intensive care unit length of stay after decannulation, total hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Delirium within 48 h after decannulation was observed in 47% of all patients and did not differ between the three groups (50% vs 50% vs 43%, p = 0.9). No differences were observed in the secondary endpoints; though there was a trend toward shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay in patients who received an empiric ⩾50% sedation reduction. Our study suggests that we may need more than a 50% reduction in sedation but prospective studies with a larger sample size are warranted to evaluate how sedative/analgesic selection and dosing affect important clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of Systemic Heparin Versus Bivalirudin in Adult Patients Supported by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Systemic anticoagulation is a standard of care in adult patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to prevent circuit thrombosis and subsequent thromboembolic events. Unfractionated heparin has long been considered the anticoagulant of choice, but emerging evidence reports successful ECMO runs with direct thrombin inhibitors. This retrospective study sought to determine whether bivalirudin offers distinct clinical benefits as the anticoagulant of choice in ECMO. Primary end points included thrombotic events during the initial 96 hours of anticoagulation, over the course of their entire ECMO run, and at any time during the admission, as well as in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary end points included percent time within therapeutic range for each anticoagulant, neurologic events, vascular complications, and bleeding. Compared with patients receiving heparin, patients receiving bivalirudin show similar rates of thrombotic events across the three time points (17.9% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.47, 21.4% vs. 11.4%; p = 0.41, and 25% vs. 22.7%; p = 1.00, respectively). In-hospital (32.1% vs. 36.4%; p = 0.91) and 30-day mortality (32.1% vs. 36.4%; p = 0.91) were no different. Similarly, no differences were observed in percent time within therapeutic range (83.0% vs. 87.7%, p = 0.34), neurological events (7.1% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.99), vascular complications (57.1% vs. 38.6%, p = 0.20), or major (25.0% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.13) and minor (25.0% vs. 22.7%, p = 1.00) bleeding. These results suggest that bivalirudin is a viable alternative to heparin for anticoagulation in ECMO but may not offer a clinically significant advantage as the anticoagulant of choice.