A 20-year multicentre outcome analysis of salvage mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock after cardiac surgery

Abstract Background Refractory post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is a relatively rare phenomenon that can lead to rapid multi-organ dysfunction syndrome and is almost invariably fatal without advanced mechanical circulatory support (AMCS), namely extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or ventricular assist devices (VAD). In this multicentre observational study we retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of salvage venoarterial ECMO (VA ECMO) and VAD for refractory PCCS in the 3 adult cardiothoracic surgery centres in Scotland over a 20-year period. Methods The data was obtained through the Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen cardiac surgery databases. Our inclusion criteria included any adult patient from April 1995 to April 2015 who had received salvage VA ECMO or VAD for PCCS refractory to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and maximal inotropic support following adult cardiac surgery. Results A total of 27 patients met the inclusion criteria. Age range was 34–83 years (median 51 years). There was a large male predominance (n = 23, 85 %). Overall 23 patients (85 %) received VA ECMO of which 14 (61 %) had central ECMO and 9 (39 %) had peripheral ECMO. Four patients (15 %) were treated with short-term VAD (BiVAD = 1, RVAD = 1 and LVAD = 2). The most common procedure-related complication was major haemorrhage (n = 10). Renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (n = 7), fatal stroke (n = 5), septic shock (n = 2), and a pseudo-aneurysm at the femoral artery cannulation site (n = 1) were also observed. Overall survival to hospital discharge was 40.7 %. All survivors were NYHA class I-II at 12 months’ follow-up. Conclusion AMCS for refractory PCCS carries a survival benefit and achieves acceptable functional recovery despite a significant complication rate

Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock after adult cardiac surgery:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background - Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) refractory to inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) occurs rarely but is almost universally fatal without mechanical circulatory support. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we looked at the evidence behind the use of veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) in refractory PCCS from a patient survival rate and determinants of outcome viewpoint. Methods - A systematic review was performed in January 2017 using PubMed (with no defined time period) using the keywords “postcardiotomy”, “cardiogenic shock”, “extracorporeal membrane oxygenation” and “cardiac surgery”. We excluded papers pertaining to ECMO following paediatric cardiac surgery, medical causes of cardiogenic shock, as well as case reports, review articles, expert opinions, and letters to the editor. Once the studies were collated, a meta-analysis was performed on the proportion of survivors in those papers that met the inclusion criteria. Meta-regression was performed for the most commonly reported adverse prognostic indicators (API). Results - We identified 24 studies and a cumulative pool of 1926 patients from 1992 to 2016. We tabulated the demographic data, including the strengths and weaknesses for each of the studies, outcomes of VA ECMO for refractory PCCS, complications, and APIs. All the studies were retrospective cohort studies. Meta-analysis of the moderately heterogeneous data (95% CI 0.29 to 0.34, p 70 years, 95% CI −0.057 to 0.001, P = 0.058), and long ECMO support (95% CI −0.068 to 0.166, P = 0.412). Postoperative renal failure, high EuroSCORE (>20%), diabetes mellitus, obesity, rising lactate whilst on ECMO, gastrointestinal complications had also been reported. Conclusion - Haemodynamic support with VA ECMO provides a survival benefit with reasonable intermediate and long-term outcomes. Many studies had reported advanced age, renal failure and prolonged VA ECMO support as the most likely APIs for VA ECMO in PCCS. EuroSCORE can be utilized to anticipate the need for prophylactic perioperative VA ECMO in the high-risk category. APIs can be used to aid decision-making regarding both the institution and weaning of ECMO for refractory PCCS

The flaws in the detail of an observational study on transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risks patients

The PARTNER group recently published a comparison between the latest generation SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-risk patients, apparently demonstrating superiority of the TAVI and suggesting that TAVI might be the preferred treatment method in this risk class of patients. Nonetheless, assessment of the non-randomized methodology used in this comparison reveals challenges that should be addressed in order to elucidate the validity of the results. The study by Thourani and colleagues showed several major methodological concerns: suboptimal methods in propensity score analysis with evident misspecification of the propensity scores (PS; no adjustment for the most significantly different covariates: left ventricular ejection fraction, moderate-severe mitral regurgitation and associated procedures); use of PS quintiles rather than matching; inference on not-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves, although the authors correctly claimed for the need of balancing score adjusting for confounding factors in order to have unbiased estimates of the treatment effect; evidence of poor fit; lack of data on valve-related death. These methodological flaws invalidate direct comparison between treatments and cannot support authors' conclusions that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients is superior to surgery and might be the preferred treatment alternative to surgery

The flaws in the detail of an observational study on transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risks patients

The PARTNER group recently published a comparison between the latest generation SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-risk patients, apparently demonstrating superiority of the TAVI and suggesting that TAVI might be the preferred treatment method in this risk class of patients. Nonetheless, assessment of the non-randomized methodology used in this comparison reveals challenges that should be addressed in order to elucidate the validity of the results. The study by Thourani and colleagues showed several major methodological concerns: suboptimal methods in propensity score analysis with evident misspecification of the propensity scores (PS; no adjustment for the most significantly different covariates: left ventricular ejection fraction, moderate-severe mitral regurgitation and associated procedures); use of PS quintiles rather than matching; inference on not-adjusted Kaplan-Meier curves, although the authors correctly claimed for the need of balancing score adjusting for confounding factors in order to have unbiased estimates of the treatment effect; evidence of poor fit; lack of data on valve-related death. These methodological flaws invalidate direct comparison between treatments and cannot support authors' conclusions that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients is superior to surgery and might be the preferred treatment alternative to surgery