JTCVS techniques · 2020
Axillary artery cannulation for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in cardiogenic shock.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ohira Suguru, Malekan Ramin, Goldberg Joshua B, Lansman Steven L, Spielvogel David, Kai Masashi, Collaborators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the outcomes of axillary artery (AX) and femoral artery (FA) cannulation for veno-arterial extracorporeal membraneous oxygenation (VA-ECMO).
METHODS: From 2009 to 2019, 371 patients who were supported with VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock were compared based on the arterial cannulation site: AX (n = 218) versus FA (n = 153).
RESULTS: Patients in the AX group were older (61 years vs 58 years, P = .011), had a greater prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (13.8% vs 5.2%, P = .008), and were less likely to have undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation preoperatively (18.8% vs 36.6%, P < .001). Other characteristics were similar between groups, as were in-hospital outcomes, including survival to discharge (60.6% vs 56.9%), cerebrovascular accidents (12.4% vs 10.5%), cannulation-related bleeding (15.1% vs 17%), and length of VA-ECMO support (6 days). The incidence of leg ischemia (6.9% vs 15.7%, P = .006), limb ischemia related to VA-ECMO cannulation (0% vs 10.5%), the need to switch the cannulation site (4.6% vs 14.7%), and wound complications (WCs; 2.8% vs 15%) including infection and additional procedure were significantly greater in the FA group (P < .001). In multiple logistic regression analysis, FA cannulation and primary graft failure after heart transplantation were independent risk factors for cannulation-related WC. In subgroup analysis among patients with primary graft failure, WCs were more prevalent in FA cannulation (3.6% vs 39.1%, P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: AX cannulation for VA-ECMO is a safe and effective alternative to FA cannulation. It can be considered especially for patients with limited groin access, peripheral vascular disease, or for primary graft failure after heart transplant.
METHODS: From 2009 to 2019, 371 patients who were supported with VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock were compared based on the arterial cannulation site: AX (n = 218) versus FA (n = 153).
RESULTS: Patients in the AX group were older (61 years vs 58 years, P = .011), had a greater prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (13.8% vs 5.2%, P = .008), and were less likely to have undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation preoperatively (18.8% vs 36.6%, P < .001). Other characteristics were similar between groups, as were in-hospital outcomes, including survival to discharge (60.6% vs 56.9%), cerebrovascular accidents (12.4% vs 10.5%), cannulation-related bleeding (15.1% vs 17%), and length of VA-ECMO support (6 days). The incidence of leg ischemia (6.9% vs 15.7%, P = .006), limb ischemia related to VA-ECMO cannulation (0% vs 10.5%), the need to switch the cannulation site (4.6% vs 14.7%), and wound complications (WCs; 2.8% vs 15%) including infection and additional procedure were significantly greater in the FA group (P < .001). In multiple logistic regression analysis, FA cannulation and primary graft failure after heart transplantation were independent risk factors for cannulation-related WC. In subgroup analysis among patients with primary graft failure, WCs were more prevalent in FA cannulation (3.6% vs 39.1%, P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: AX cannulation for VA-ECMO is a safe and effective alternative to FA cannulation. It can be considered especially for patients with limited groin access, peripheral vascular disease, or for primary graft failure after heart transplant.