English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest are life-threatening emergencies with high mortality rates. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (e-CPR) provide viable options for life sustaining measures when medical therapy fails. The purpose of this study is to determine the utilization and outcomes of VA ECMO and eCPR in patients that require emergent cardiac support at a single academic center.    Methods  A retrospective chart review of prospectively collected data was performed at an academic institution from January 1st, 2018 to June 30th, 2020. All consecutive patients who required VA ECMO were evaluated based on whether they underwent traditional VA ECMO or eCPR. The study variables include demographic data, duration on ECMO, length of stay, complications, and survival to discharge.    Results  A total of 90 patients were placed on VA ECMO for cardiac support with 44.4% (40) of these patients undergoing eCPR secondary to cardiac arrest and emergent placement on ECMO. A majority of the patients were male (n = 64, 71.1%) and the mean age was 58.8 ± 15.8 years. 44.4% of patients were transferred from outside hospitals for a higher level of care and 37.8% of patients required another primary therapy such as an Impella or IABP. The most common complication experienced by patients was bleeding (n = 41, 45.6%), which occurred less often in eCPR (n = 29, 58% vs. n = 12, 30%). Other complications included infections (n = 11, 12.2%), limb ischemia (n = 13, 14.4%), acute kidney injury (n = 17, 18.9%), and cerebral vascular accident (n = 4, 4.4%). The length of stay was longer for patients on VA ECMO (32.1 ± 40.7 days vs. 17.7 ± 18.2 days). Mean time on ECMO was 8.1 ± 8.3 days. Survival to discharge was higher in VA ECMO patients (n = 23, 46% vs. n = 8, 20%).    Conclusion  VA ECMO provided an effective rescue therapy in patients in acute cardiogenic shock with a survival greater than the expected ELSO guidelines of 40%. While the survival of eCPR was lower than expected, this may reflect the severity of patient’s condition and emphasizes the importance of careful patient selection and planning.

Short-term and intermediate outcomes of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest patients supported by venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation