Outcomes comparison between percutaneous decannulation with perclose ProGlide and surgical decannulation of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to compare the decannulation-related outcomes of two different decannulation methods in patients who underwent veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support, namely percutaneous decannulation with Perclose ProGlide device and conventional surgical repair.

BACKGROUND

Surgical vascular repair is a standard strategy when ECMO is to be terminated and sometimes associated with severe complications. Percutaneous decannulation using Perclose ProGlide has been reported to be feasible and safe in selected patients, but there is a paucity of literature to make systematic comparisons between the two decannulation methods.

METHODS

41 patients who were supported with VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or escort of complex interventions from December 2018 to December 2021 were enrolled. Of these, 30 underwent percutaneous Perclose ProGlide decannulation and 11 underwent surgical repair. The clinical characteristics and complication rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients in the two groups showed a similar incidence of vascular-related complications, such as acute lower limb ischemia, major bleeding, severe hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, and arteriovenous fistula [20% versus 18.2%, =.896]. The incidence of groin infection and delayed healing was significantly higher in the surgical removal group [3.3% versus 36.4%, =.014].

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous decannulation of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with the Perclose ProGlide device is a feasible and safe technique that simplifies the decannulation process, shortens the hospitalization duration, and lowers the potential risk of groin infection and delayed wound healing.