Comparison of temporary ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal life support in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) results in substantial morbidity and mortality, whereas refractory cases require mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The aim of the study was to compare extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ventricular assist devices (VADs) utilized in the management of PCCS. METHODS: In total, 56 consecutive patients who developed PCCS from 2005 to 2014 required MCS as a bridge to decision—24 were supported with a VAD and 32 with an ECMO. Groups were compared with respect to pre- and intraoperative characteristics and early and long-term outcomes to evaluate the impact of the type of MCS on complications and survival. Data are mean ± standard deviation and median with quartiles. RESULTS: EuroSCORE II was significantly higher in the VAD group than in the ECMO group (28 ± 20 vs 13 ± 16, P = 0.020) corresponding to significantly higher New York Heart Association (P = 0.031) class and Canadian Cardiovascular Society class (P = 0.040) in the cohort. The median duration of support was 10 (4–23) and 7 (4–10) days in the VAD and ECMO groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in ITU (P = 0.262), hospital stay (P = 0.193) and incidences of most postoperative complications. A significantly higher proportion of patients was successfully weaned/upgraded in the VAD group [13 (54%) vs 4 (13%), P = 0.048] with a trend towards higher discharge rate [9 (38%) vs 5 (16%), P = 0.061]. Overall cumulative survival in early follow-up [Breslow (Generalized Wilcoxon) P = 0.017] and long-term follow-up [Log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.015] was significantly better in the VAD group. CONCLUSIONS: VAD and ECMO represent essential tools to support patients with PCCS. Our preliminary results might indicate some benefits of using VAD in this group of patients; however, this evidence should be further assessed in larger multicentre trials.