Objectives: To verify the impact on intra-hospital survival of the "Shock Team" in the decision to use Veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) as support in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in cardiogenic shock (CS), requiring percutaneous revascularization (PCI). Methods: Consecutive patients who from July 2013 to September 2020, presented to our Center for SCA and CS candidates for primary PCI, supported with VA-ECMO, were considered. The Shock Team is composed of the Hemodynamic Cardiologist, Clin- ical Cardiologist, Anesthesiologist, Cardiac Surgeon and Perfusionist. Over the years, the shared pre- or intra- procedural decision of how to mechanically support the circulation or not in patients with CS has been im- plemented. The retrospective analysis of consecutive patients has as primary end-point the frequency of Shock Team training, from the analysis of the conditions in which VA-ECMO was implanted, i.e. semi-elective (ECLS - Extracorporeal Life Support) or emergency (ECPR - Extracorporeal Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscita- tion), followed by the rate of weaning and survival from VA-ECMO. Results: Twenty-three patients (19 males, median age 63 years, range 59-66 years) were supported with femoral- femoral VA-ECMO. The Shock Team was formed in 11 cases. When Shock Team was formed (Group 1), VA- ECMO was implanted as ECLS in 7/11 cases, in the remaining as ECPR. In Group 2 (no pre-procedure Shock Team consultation), VA-ECMO was implanted as ECPR in 11/12 cases (92%) and intra-procedure. Pre- or intra-procedural IABP was implanted in all patients in Group 2. In Group 1, intra-hospital survival was 9/11 cases (82%) and in Group 2 3/12 cases (25%), in most of the latter with no possibility of weaning. Conclusions: In our case series, periprocedural Shock Team in patients with CS, allowed the establishment of mechanical support to the circulation in a semi-elective manner, with successful PCI and was associated with high survival. In contrast, in those in whom VA-ECMO is implanted as ECPR due to lack of shared decision, high intra-hospital mortality is observed. We therefore recommend in patients with ACS and CS the presence and consultation of the pre-procedural Shock Team.
Bianchi, G., E., Z., S., S., S., S., A., D.C., D., H., et al. (2022). Extracorporeal life support for acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock requiring PCI: The impact of the shock team on outcomes. PERFUSION-UK, 37(1S), 81-82 [10.1177/02676591221089240].
Extracorporeal life support for acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock requiring PCI: The impact of the shock team on outcomes
BIANCHI G
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
2022-01-01
Abstract
Objectives: To verify the impact on intra-hospital survival of the "Shock Team" in the decision to use Veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) as support in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in cardiogenic shock (CS), requiring percutaneous revascularization (PCI). Methods: Consecutive patients who from July 2013 to September 2020, presented to our Center for SCA and CS candidates for primary PCI, supported with VA-ECMO, were considered. The Shock Team is composed of the Hemodynamic Cardiologist, Clin- ical Cardiologist, Anesthesiologist, Cardiac Surgeon and Perfusionist. Over the years, the shared pre- or intra- procedural decision of how to mechanically support the circulation or not in patients with CS has been im- plemented. The retrospective analysis of consecutive patients has as primary end-point the frequency of Shock Team training, from the analysis of the conditions in which VA-ECMO was implanted, i.e. semi-elective (ECLS - Extracorporeal Life Support) or emergency (ECPR - Extracorporeal Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscita- tion), followed by the rate of weaning and survival from VA-ECMO. Results: Twenty-three patients (19 males, median age 63 years, range 59-66 years) were supported with femoral- femoral VA-ECMO. The Shock Team was formed in 11 cases. When Shock Team was formed (Group 1), VA- ECMO was implanted as ECLS in 7/11 cases, in the remaining as ECPR. In Group 2 (no pre-procedure Shock Team consultation), VA-ECMO was implanted as ECPR in 11/12 cases (92%) and intra-procedure. Pre- or intra-procedural IABP was implanted in all patients in Group 2. In Group 1, intra-hospital survival was 9/11 cases (82%) and in Group 2 3/12 cases (25%), in most of the latter with no possibility of weaning. Conclusions: In our case series, periprocedural Shock Team in patients with CS, allowed the establishment of mechanical support to the circulation in a semi-elective manner, with successful PCI and was associated with high survival. In contrast, in those in whom VA-ECMO is implanted as ECPR due to lack of shared decision, high intra-hospital mortality is observed. We therefore recommend in patients with ACS and CS the presence and consultation of the pre-procedural Shock Team.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/1221483
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo