Ltaief Zied, Lupieri Ermes, Bonnemain Jean, Ben-Hamouda Nawfel, Rancati Valentina, Schmidt Kobbe Sabine, Kirsch Matthias, Chiche Jean-Daniel, Liaudet Lucas
Service of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Service of Anesthesiology, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2022 May 27;23(6):193. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2306193. eCollection 2022 Jun.
High-risk Pulmonary Embolism (PE) has an ominous prognosis and requires emergent reperfusion therapy, primarily systemic thrombolysis (ST). In deteriorating patients or with contraindications to ST, Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may be life-saving, as supported by several retrospective studies. However, due to the heterogeneous clinical presentation (refractory shock, resuscitated cardiac arrest (CA) or refractory CA), the real impact of VA-ECMO in high-risk PE remains to be fully determined. In this study, we present our centre experience with VA-ECMO for high-risk PE.
From 2008 to 2020, we analyzed all consecutive patients treated with VA-ECMO for high-risk PE in our tertiary 35-bed intensive care unit (ICU). Demographic variables, types of reperfusion therapies, indications for VA-ECMO (refractory shock or refractory CA requiring extra-corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR), hemodynamic variables, initial arterial blood lactate and ICU complications were recorded. The primary outcome was ICU survival, and secondary outcome was hospital survival.
Our cohort included 18 patients (9F/9M, median age 57 years old). VA-ECMO was indicated for refractory shock in 7 patients (2 primary and 5 following resuscitated CA) and for refractory CA in 11 patients. Eight patients received anticoagulation only, 9 received ST, and 4 underwent surgical embolectomy. ICU survival was 1/11 (9%) for ECPR vs 3/7 (42%) in patients with refractory shock ( = 0.03, log-rank test). Hospital survival was 0/11 (0%) for ECPR vs 3/7 for refractory shock ( = 0.01, log-rank test). Survivors and Non-survivors had comparable demographic and hemodynamic variables, pulmonary obstruction index, and amounts of administered vasoactive drugs. Pre-ECMO lactate was significantly higher in non-survivors. Massive bleeding was the most frequent complication in survivors and non-survivors, and was the direct cause of death in 3 patients, all treated with ST.
VA-ECMO for high-risk PE has very different outcomes depending on the clinical context. Furthermore, VA-ECMO was associated with significant bleeding complications, with more severe consequences following systemic thrombolysis. Future studies on VA-ECMO for high-risk PE should therefore take into account the distinct clinical presentations and should determine the best strategy for reperfusion in such circumstances.
高危肺栓塞(PE)预后不佳,需要紧急再灌注治疗,主要是全身溶栓(ST)。在病情恶化的患者或存在ST禁忌证的患者中,静脉-动脉体外膜肺氧合(VA-ECMO)可能挽救生命,多项回顾性研究支持这一点。然而,由于临床表现各异(难治性休克、复苏后心脏骤停(CA)或难治性CA),VA-ECMO在高危PE中的实际影响仍有待充分确定。在本研究中,我们介绍了我们中心使用VA-ECMO治疗高危PE的经验。
2008年至2020年,我们分析了在我们拥有35张床位的三级重症监护病房(ICU)中接受VA-ECMO治疗高危PE的所有连续患者。记录人口统计学变量、再灌注治疗类型、VA-ECMO的适应证(难治性休克或需要体外心肺复苏(ECPR)的难治性CA)、血流动力学变量、初始动脉血乳酸水平和ICU并发症。主要结局是ICU生存率,次要结局是医院生存率。
我们的队列包括18例患者(9例女性/9例男性,中位年龄57岁)。7例患者因难治性休克(2例原发性和5例复苏后CA)接受VA-ECMO治疗,11例患者因难治性CA接受治疗。8例患者仅接受抗凝治疗,9例接受ST治疗,4例接受手术取栓。ECPR患者的ICU生存率为1/11(9%),难治性休克患者为3/7(42%)(P = 0.03,对数秩检验)。ECPR患者的医院生存率为0/11(0%),难治性休克患者为3/7(P = 0.01,对数秩检验)。幸存者和非幸存者在人口统计学和血流动力学变量、肺阻塞指数以及血管活性药物使用量方面具有可比性。非幸存者的ECMO前乳酸水平显著更高。大出血是幸存者和非幸存者中最常见的并发症,是3例患者的直接死亡原因,这3例患者均接受了ST治疗。
VA-ECMO治疗高危PE的结局因临床情况而异。此外,VA-ECMO与显著的出血并发症相关,全身溶栓后后果更严重。因此,未来关于VA-ECMO治疗高危PE的研究应考虑不同的临床表现,并应确定在这种情况下的最佳再灌注策略。