Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Health Science University, Kosuyolu High Specialization Education and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkiye.
Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Department, Umraniye Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye.
Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Nov 28;e20230241(e20230241):e20230241. doi: 10.21470/1678-9741-2023-0241.
Various cannulation strategies for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) support are currently in use according to the clinical urgency and experience of the rescuing team. Although central V-A ECMO is considered more effective than a peripheral approach, the superiority of one cannulation configuration instead of another remains a controversial subject. This study mainly aims to compare the contribution of V-A ECMO circulatory support modalities to patients' improvement according to various cannulation site strategies and additional usage of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP).
The study design involved the categorization of all patients into two groups: isolated V-A ECMO support and V-A ECMO plus IABP support. Secondly, we divided the patients into four groups considering V-A ECMO cannulation sites, such as central (aorto-atrial), axillo-femoral, femoro-femoral, and jugulo-femoral. We analyzed the parameters regarding the outcome for each group.
When comparing cannulation sites in relation to laboratory parameters for assessing organ perfusion, no statistically significant differences were observed among the groups. We found no statistically significant result within the groups affecting organ perfusion. The complication rates were higher in patients with concomitant IABP support, but the difference was not statistically significant likewise.
V-A ECMO provides effective perfusion, no matter which cannulation site is preferred during the decision-making process, and the utilization of IABP support has no additional contribution to the outcomes. We believe that the most suitable strategy should be a tailor-made decision according to the clinical status of patients, the pathology, urgency, and cost-effectiveness.
根据临床紧急情况和抢救团队的经验,目前有多种用于动静脉体外膜肺氧合(V-A ECMO)支持的置管策略。虽然中心 V-A ECMO 被认为比外周方法更有效,但一种置管配置是否优于另一种配置仍然存在争议。本研究主要旨在根据各种置管部位策略和使用主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)的情况,比较 V-A ECMO 循环支持方式对患者改善的贡献。
研究设计将所有患者分为两组:单纯 V-A ECMO 支持和 V-A ECMO 加 IABP 支持。其次,我们根据 V-A ECMO 置管部位将患者分为四组,如中心(主动脉-心房)、腋股、股股和颈股。我们分析了每组与评估器官灌注相关的结果参数。
当比较与评估器官灌注的实验室参数相关的置管部位时,各组之间没有观察到统计学上的显著差异。我们没有发现影响器官灌注的组内统计学显著结果。同时使用 IABP 支持的患者并发症发生率较高,但差异同样无统计学意义。
V-A ECMO 提供有效的灌注,无论在决策过程中首选哪种置管部位,IABP 支持的使用对结果没有额外的贡献。我们认为,最合适的策略应该是根据患者的临床状况、病理、紧急情况和成本效益,制定个性化的决策。