The Utility of Risk Scores in Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

7Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The use of a venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the postcardiotomy shock setting (PC-ECMO) can be life-saving. Risk stratification for patients under PC-ECMO is currently challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the discriminatory ability of the different available risk scores for mortality in PC-ECMO patients. Methods: Patients aged >18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass, valve surgery, or a combination of these procedures and implanted an ECMO for postcardiotomy shock between January 2017 and June 2022 in a single ELSO registered center were retrospectively included. The STS, Euroscore II, SAVE, modified SAVE, APACHE II, and VIS scores were compared for their discriminatory ability concerning weaning and 30-day survival. Results: During the study period, 7342 patients underwent coronary bypass or valve surgery, of whom 109 patients with PC-ECMO were included in the analysis. The Euroscore II and STS scores were not associated significantly with 30-day mortality, whereas the SAVE, the modified SAVE, APACHE II, and VIS scores significantly predicted 30-day mortality. The SAVE and the modified SAVE scores showed moderate discrimination ability with AUCs of 0.672 and 0.695, while the APACHE and VIS scores had a satisfactory discriminatory ability with AUCs of 0.727 and 0.844, respectively. Conclusion: Currently used risk scores for PC-ECMO patients do not provide satisfactory predictions for weaning and survival. VIS at the 24th hour can be a valuable parameter for risk analysis and prospective studies can investigate novel PC-ECMO risk scoring systems.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Erdoğan, S. B., Bastopcu, M., Usca, M. K., Çakmak, A. Y., Sargın, M., & Aka, S. (2024). The Utility of Risk Scores in Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Perfusion (United Kingdom), 39(3), 578–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591231154741

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free