Right ventricular (RV) failure is the inability of the RV to maintain sufficient cardiac output in the setting of adequate preload, due to either intrinsic injury to the RV or increased afterload. Medical treatment of RV failure should include optimizing preload, augmenting contractility with vasopressors and inotropes, and considering inhaled pulmonary vasodilators. However, when medical therapies are insufficient, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is needed to maintain systemic and RV perfusion. The data on MCS for isolated RV failure are limited, but extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) appears to be the most efficient and effective modality. For patients with isolated RV failure from acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, veno-venous (VV) ECMO is an appropriate initial configuration, even if the patient is in shock. With primary RV injury or RV failure with concomitant left ventricle (LV) failure, however, venoarterial (VA) ECMO is indicated. Both modalities provide indirect support to the RV by reducing preload, reducing RV wall tension, and delivering oxygenated blood to the coronary circulation. Peripheral cannulation is required in VV-ECMO and is most commonly used in VA-ECMO, allowing for rapid cannulation even in emergencies. Changes in pulsatility on an arterial catheter waveform can indicate changes in clinical status including changes in myocardial function, inadequate preload, worsening RV failure, and excessive VA-ECMO support leading to an elevated LV afterload. Myocardial function may be improved by titration of inotropes or vasodilators, utilization of an Impella or an intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation support devices, or by changes in VA-ECMO support.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has accelerated rapidly for patients in severe cardiac or respiratory failure. As a result, ECMO networks are being developed across the world using a “hub and spoke” model. Current guidelines call for all patients transported on ECMO to be accompanied by a physician during transport. However, as ECMO centers and networks grow, the increasing number of transports will be limited by this mandate. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare rates of adverse events occurring during transport of ECMO patients with and without an additional clinician, defined as a physician, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of all adults transported while cannulated on ECMO from 2011-2018 via ground and air between 21 hospitals in the northeastern United States, comparing transports with and without additional clinicians. The primary outcome was the rate of major adverse events, and the secondary outcome was minor adverse events. Results: Over the seven-year study period, 93 patients on ECMO were transported. Twenty-three transports (24.7%) were accompanied by a physician or other additional clinician. Major adverse events occurred in 21.5% of all transports. There was no difference in the total rate of major adverse events between accompanied and unaccompanied transports (P = .91). Multivariate analysis did not demonstrate any parameter as being predictive of major adverse events. Conclusions: In a retrospective cohort study of transports of ECMO patients, there was no association between the overall rate of major adverse events in transport and the accompaniment of an additional clinician. No variables were associated with major adverse events in either cohort.

No abstract