Risk factors for adverse outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Left ventricular assist device implantation following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation has been associated with ambivalent results. In a series of patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, we investigated whether the outcome can be predicted by preoperative risk factors or established risk scores. Primary endpoint was a composite of mortality and severe neurological disabling over 1 year of follow-up. To assess predictors of the primary endpoint, we performed univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses. Of the 40 patients included, 24 patients (60%) experienced the primary endpoint. Renal replacement therapy and the Vasoactive-Inotropic Score were independently associated regarding the primary endpoint with a hazard ratio for renal replacement therapy of 2.50 (95% confidence interval: 1.09–5.70; P = 0.021) and for the Vasoactive-Inotropic Score of 1.02 per unit (95% confidence interval: 1.00–1.03; P = 0.040). The risk of experiencing an unfavorable outcome during follow-up in patients with a Vasoactive-Inotropic Score of 20 who needed renal replacement therapy or did not need renal replacement therapy was 78% and 54%, respectively. Our data indicate that a decision to implant a left ventricular assist device in patients requiring renal replacement therapy and revealing a high Vasoactive-Inotropic Score after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be reached with caution.

[1]  Y. Shudo Extracorporeal , 2020, Definitions.

[2]  K. Carriere,et al.  Vasoactive Inotropic Score as a Predictor of Mortality in Adult Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: Medical Therapy Versus ECMO. , 2018, Revista espanola de cardiologia.

[3]  Joo Myung Lee,et al.  La escala de vasoactivos inotrópicos como predictora de mortalidad de adultos con shock cardiogénico tratados con y sin ECMO , 2019, Revista Española de Cardiología.

[4]  M. Morshuis,et al.  Corrigendum to 'Extracorporeal resuscitation as a further modifier of clinical outcome in patients with left ventricular assist device implantation and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support 1 level' [Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2018;27:139-41]. , 2018, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[5]  M. Morshuis,et al.  Extracorporeal resuscitation as a further modifier of clinical outcome in patients with left ventricular assist device implantation and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support level 1. , 2018, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[6]  A. Wienke,et al.  Cardiac surgery score (CASUS) improves outcome prediction in patients treated with extracorporal life support (ECLS) , 2018, Perfusion.

[7]  N. Al-Attar,et al.  Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock after adult cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery.

[8]  K. Caliskan,et al.  Short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[9]  R. Benza,et al.  Low Accuracy of the HeartMate Risk Score for Predicting Mortality Using the INTERMACS Registry Data , 2017, ASAIO journal.

[10]  F. Pappalardo,et al.  Stepwise use of circulatory support devices in a patient refractory to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. , 2017, Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions.

[11]  Po-Hung Chen,et al.  Hypoxic Hepatitis: A Review and Clinical Update , 2016, Journal of clinical and translational hepatology.

[12]  A. Lichtenberg,et al.  A Suprainstitutional Network for Remote Extracorporeal Life Support: A Retrospective Cohort Study. , 2016, JACC. Heart failure.

[13]  L. Hornby,et al.  Extracorporeal resuscitation for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in adults: A systematic review of international practices and outcomes. , 2016, Resuscitation.

[14]  B. Medalion,et al.  Model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio (MELD-XI) score predicts heart transplant outcomes: Evidence from the registry of the United Network for Organ Sharing. , 2016, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[15]  Robert L Kormos,et al.  Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting. , 2015, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[16]  G. Ewald,et al.  The Heartmate Risk Score predicts morbidity and mortality in unselected left ventricular assist device recipients and risk stratifies INTERMACS class 1 patients. , 2015, JACC. Heart failure.

[17]  S. Kim,et al.  An optimal transition time to extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for predicting good neurological outcome in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a propensity-matched study , 2014, Critical Care.

[18]  Thomas D Rea,et al.  Reliability of the Cerebral Performance Category to classify neurological status among survivors of ventricular fibrillation arrest: a cohort study , 2011, Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine.

[19]  Jonathan W Haft,et al.  Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Score Predicts Left Ventricular Assist Device Operative Transfusion Requirements, Morbidity, and Mortality , 2010, Circulation.

[20]  F. Pagani,et al.  Short- and long-term survival of patients transferred to a tertiary care center on temporary extracorporeal circulatory support. , 2009, The Annals of thoracic surgery.