Extracorporeal life support bridge for pulmonary hypertension: A high-volume single-center experience.

BACKGROUND

Application of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for advanced pulmonary hypertension (PH) is evolving and may be deployed as a bridge to transplantation (BTT) or in one of several non-BTT uses, such as bridge to recovery (BTR) to the chronic PH clinical state in the setting of an acute PH trigger, bridge through non-transplant surgery (BTNTS), or bridge post-transplantation (BPT).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients with World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension Group 1, 3, 4, or 5 PH who received ECLS at Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital between January 1, 2010 and August 18, 2018. We describe patient characteristics, outcomes, and our approach to medical and surgical management of these patients.

RESULTS

There were 98 patients with significant PH in the cohort (54 female; median age, 48 years [interquartile range, 32-58]). Of these, 44 (45%) patients with PH received ECLS as non-BTT with intent to recover back to their baseline functional state, optimize therapy, or support through a definitive surgery, including 19 BTR, 17 BTNTS, and 8 BPT, and 54 (55%) patients received ECLS as BTT. In the overall cohort, 67 (68.4%) patients received venoarterial ECLS and 31 (31.6%) received venovenous (VV) ECLS. Out of 83 patients, 52 (63%) were liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation, and 85.2% of BTT patients with PH ambulated while on ECLS. Management of PH medications was individualized, often requiring titration with use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators increased after cannulation in non-BTT. Overall 30-day survival was 73.5%, survival to ECLS decannulation was 66.3%, and survival to hospital discharge was 54.1%. All 8 BPT patients (100%) survived to hospital discharge, 64.7% of BTNTS patients survived to hospital discharge, and 32 (59.3%) BTT patients survived to lung transplantation. Early-era use of VV-ECLS for BTT had worse survival to discharge than those initially configured with venoarterial ECLS, impacting the overall survival and leading to limited use of VV-ECLS in the current era for BPT, BTNTS, and select BTR cases.

CONCLUSIONS

ECLS instituted by a specialized, multidisciplinary team has a role in the management of advanced PH as BTT or as non-BTT (including BTR, BTNTS, and BPT). Careful selection of ECLS cannulation configurations, patient-specific optimization of PH medical therapies, and avoidance of endotracheal intubation may be effective strategies in managing these complex patients.