Percutaneous angio-guided versus surgical veno-arterial ECLS implantation in patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND

Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Life Support (V-A ECLS) has gained increasing place into the management of patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Both surgical and percutaneous approach can be used for cannulation, but percutaneous approach has been associated with fewer complications. Angio-guided percutaneous cannulation and decannulation may further decrease the rate of complication. We aimed to compare outcome and complication rates in patients supported with V-A ECLS through percutaneous angio-guided versus surgical approach.

METHODS

We included all patients with emergent peripheral femoro-femoral V-A ECLS implantation for refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest in our center from March 2018 to March 2021. Survival and major complications (major bleeding, limb ischemia and groin infection) rates were compared between the percutaneous angio-guided and the surgical groups.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients received V-A ECLS, 59 through surgical approach and 61 through angio-guided percutaneous approach. Patients' baseline characteristics and severity scores were equally balanced between the 2 groups. Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between the 2 approaches. However, angio-guided percutaneous cannulation was associated with fewer major vascular complications (42% vs. 11%, p > 0.0001) and a higher rate of V-A ECLS decannulation. In multivariate analysis, percutaneous angio-guided implantation of V-A ECLS was independently associated with a lower probability of major complications.

CONCLUSION

Compared to surgical approach, angio-guided percutaneous V-A ECLS implantation is associated with fewer major vascular complications. Larger studies are needed to confirm those results and address their impact on mortality.