Short-term mechanical circulatory support in elderly patients.
VA-ECMO
cardiogenic shock
elderly
impella
mechanical circulatory support
Journal
Artificial organs
ISSN: 1525-1594
Titre abrégé: Artif Organs
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802778
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2022
May 2022
Historique:
revised:
12
08
2021
received:
30
03
2021
accepted:
08
11
2021
pubmed:
16
11
2021
medline:
13
4
2022
entrez:
15
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Age over 70 years seems to confer poor prognosis for patients under mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Advanced age is usually a relative contraindication. Our objective was to assess the impact of age on survival of patients with short-term MCS. Retrospective analysis of ≥70-year-old patients supported with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or Impella CP® due to cardiogenic shock and other situations of hemodynamic instability in a referral hospital (elderly group), compared with younger patients (<70 years). We analyze factors associated with survival in elderly group. Out of 164 short-term MCS implants from 2013 to October 2020, 45 (27.4%) correspond to ≥70-year-old patients (73.3% VA-ECMO; 26.7% Impella CP®), 80% as bridge to recovery and 15.6% for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We found no significant differences in complications developed between both groups. Survivals at discharge (40% vs. 43.7%, p = 0.403) and at follow-up (median 13.6 [30] months) were similar in elderly and young patients (35.6% vs. 37.8%, log-rank p = 0.061). Predictive factors of mortality in elderly patients were peripheral artery disease (p = 0.037), higher lactate (p = 0.003) and creatinine (p = 0.035) at implant, longer cardiac arrest (p = 0.003), and worse post-implantation left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.003). Patients with indication of MCS for high-risk PCI had higher survival compared to other indications (p = 0.013). Short-term MCS with VA-ECMO or Impella CP® in elderly patients may be a reasonable option in hemodynamic compromise situations as bridge to recovery or elective high-risk PCI, without a significant increase in complications or mortality. Age should not be an absolute contraindication, but careful selection of candidate patients is necessary.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Age over 70 years seems to confer poor prognosis for patients under mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Advanced age is usually a relative contraindication. Our objective was to assess the impact of age on survival of patients with short-term MCS.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective analysis of ≥70-year-old patients supported with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or Impella CP® due to cardiogenic shock and other situations of hemodynamic instability in a referral hospital (elderly group), compared with younger patients (<70 years). We analyze factors associated with survival in elderly group.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Out of 164 short-term MCS implants from 2013 to October 2020, 45 (27.4%) correspond to ≥70-year-old patients (73.3% VA-ECMO; 26.7% Impella CP®), 80% as bridge to recovery and 15.6% for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We found no significant differences in complications developed between both groups. Survivals at discharge (40% vs. 43.7%, p = 0.403) and at follow-up (median 13.6 [30] months) were similar in elderly and young patients (35.6% vs. 37.8%, log-rank p = 0.061). Predictive factors of mortality in elderly patients were peripheral artery disease (p = 0.037), higher lactate (p = 0.003) and creatinine (p = 0.035) at implant, longer cardiac arrest (p = 0.003), and worse post-implantation left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.003). Patients with indication of MCS for high-risk PCI had higher survival compared to other indications (p = 0.013).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Short-term MCS with VA-ECMO or Impella CP® in elderly patients may be a reasonable option in hemodynamic compromise situations as bridge to recovery or elective high-risk PCI, without a significant increase in complications or mortality. Age should not be an absolute contraindication, but careful selection of candidate patients is necessary.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
867-877Subventions
Organisme : Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Co-funded by European Social Fund "Investing in your future")
ID : CM19/00055
Informations de copyright
© 2021 International Center for Artificial Organs and Transplantation and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Chakaramakkil MJ, Cumaraswamy SC. ECMO and short-term support for cardiogenic shock in heart failure. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018;20(10):87.
Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, et al. 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care: endorsed by the American Heart Association, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; affirmation of value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d'intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(19):e7-26.
Kirklin JK, Pagani FD, Goldstein DJ, John R, Rogers JG, Atluri P, et al. American Association for Thoracic Surgery/International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines on selected topics in mechanical circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;159(3):865-96.
Eckman PM, Katz JN, El Banayosy A, Bohula EA, Sun B, van Diepen S. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: an introduction for the busy clinician. Circulation. 2019;140(24):2019-37.
Thiagarajan RR, Barbaro RP, Rycus PT, Mcmullan DM, Conrad SA, Fortenberry JD, et al; ELSO Member Centers. Extracorporeal life support organization registry international report 2016. ASAIO J. 2017;63(1):60-7.
Lorusso R, Gelsomino S, Parise O, Mendiratta P, Prodhan P, Rycus P, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock in elderly patients: trends in application and outcome from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104(1):62-9.
Chung M, Zhao Y, Strom JB, Shen C, Yeh RW. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in cardiogenic shock: impact of age on in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):e214-21.
Iannaccone M, Albani S, Giannini F, Colangelo S, Boccuzzi GG, Garbo R, et al. Short term outcomes of Impella in cardiogenic shock: a review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Int J Cardiol. 2021;324:44-51.
Biancari F, Saeed D, Fiore A, Dalén M, Ruggieri VG, Jónsson K, et al. Postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients aged 70 years or older. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108(4):1257-64.
Aissaoui N, Luyt CE, Leprince P, Trouillet JL, Léger P, Pavie A, et al. Predictors of successful extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) weaning after assistance for refractory cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(11):1738-45.
Batra J, Toyoda N, Goldstone AB, Itagaki S, Egorova NN, Chikwe J. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in New York state: trends, outcomes, and implications for patient selection. Circ Heart Fail. 2016;9(12):e003179.
Schmidt M, Burrell A, Roberts L, Bailey M, Sheldrake J, Rycus PT, et al. Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(33):2246-56.
Wang L, Yang F, Wang X, Xie H, Fan E, Ogino M, et al. Predicting mortality in patients undergoing VA-ECMO after coronary artery bypass grafting: the REMEMBER score. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):11.
Muller G, Flecher E, Lebreton G, Luyt C-E, Trouillet J-L, Bréchot N, et al. The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):370-8.
O'Neill WW, Grines C, Schreiber T, Moses J, Maini B, Dixon SR, et al. Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 U.S. patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device. Am Heart J. 2018;202:33-8.
Ouweneel DM, de Brabander J, Karami M, Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, et al. Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2019;8(4):338-49.
Hajjar LA, Teboul JL. Mechanical circulatory support devices for cardiogenic shock: state of the art. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):76.
ELSO adult cardiac failure supplement to the ELSO general guidelines, version 1.3 2013. Ann Arbor, MI. Available from: www.elso.org
ELSO guidelines for cardiopulmonary extracorporeal life support extracorporeal life support organization, version 1.4 August 2017. Ann Arbor, MI. Available from: www.elso.org
Mehra MR, Canter CE, Hannan MM, Semigran MJ, Uber PA, Baran DA, et al. The 2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation listing criteria for heart transplantation: a 10-year update. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35(1):1-23.
Loforte A, Marinelli G, Musumeci F, Folesani G, Pilato E, Martin Suarez S, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in refractory cardiogenic shock: treatment strategies and analysis of risk factors. Artif Organs. 2014;38(7):E129-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.12317
Chieffo A, Burzotta F, Pappalardo F, Briguori C, Garbo R, Masiero G, et al. Clinical expert consensus document on the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist support devices during complex high-risk indicated PCI: Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology Working Group Endorsed by Spanish and Portuguese Interventional Cardiology Societies. Int J Cardiol. 2019;15(293):84-90.
Kar S. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018;20(1):2.
Percutaneous insertion of a temporary heart pump for left ventricular haemodynamic support in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. 2018. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg633
Burrell AJC, Pellegrino VA, Wolfe R, Wong WK, Cooper DJ, Kaye DM, et al. Long-term survival of adults with cardiogenic shock after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Crit Care. 2015;30(5):949-56.
Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, Burkhoff D, Hall SA, Henry TD, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: this document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;94(1):29-37.
Dutt DP, Pinney SP. Clinical variability within the INTERMACS 1 profile: implications for treatment options. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2014;29(3):244-9.