Background The optimal venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) cannulation strategy in patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is still debatable. Studies evaluating the effect of cannulation strategy on long-term survival are scarce. Objectives We investigated the impact of central versus peripheral cannulation strategy for ECMO insertion on hospital outcomes and survival in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock patients. Methods This retrospective study involved 101 patients who had either central or peripheral ECMO due to postcardiotomy shock between June 2009 and December 2020. Study endpoints were limb ischemia, bleeding, blood transfusion, wound infection, and overall survival. Results Eighty-four patients received central (c) ECMO, and 17 patients had peripheral (p) ECMO. In the group of pECMO, limb ischemia was significantly higher (5 [29.41%] vs 6 [7.14%]; p = .01). Other endpoints were similar in both groups. Thirty-day mortality was nonsignificantly different between both cohorts (cECMO 34 [41.67%] vs pECMO 10 [58.82%]; p = .29). However, overall survival was better with cECMO (Log-rank p = .02). Patients’ age [HR: 1.04 (95% CI: 1.02–1.06); p = .001], pECMO [HR: 1.98 (95% CI: 1.11–3.55), p = .002] and presence of infective endocarditis [HR: 3.54 (95% CI: 1.52–8.24), p = .03] were significant predictors of overall mortality. Conclusions Peripheral ECMO was associated with an increased risk of limb ischemia; however, bleeding, blood transfusion, infection, and 30-day mortality were comparable to central ECMO. Central cannulation was associated with a better 1-year survival rate. Therefore, central cannulation might be the preferred strategy for patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.

Background Limited data evaluated the outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with prosthetic valves. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of ECMO support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in patients with mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves. Methods This retrospective study included patients with ECMO support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after valve replacement. Patients were grouped into bioprosthetic ( n = 49) and mechanical valve ( n = 22) groups. Results There were no differences in ECMO duration, inotropic support, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), stroke, duration of ICU, and hospital stay between groups. Postoperative thrombosis occurred in 2 patients with bioprosthetic valves (5.41%) and 2 with mechanical valves (14.29%), p = .30. All patients with thrombosis had central ECMO cannulation, concomitant IABP, and inotropic support during ECMO. All thrombi were related to the mitral valve. Three patients with thrombi had hospital mortality. Survival at 6, 12, and 36 months for bioprosthetic valve patients was 30.88%, 28.55%, and 25.34% and for mechanical valves was 36.36% for all time intervals (Log-rank p = .93). One patient had bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis after 1 year. Three patients with bioprosthetic valves had structural valve degeneration after 1, 2, and 5 years. Conclusions Outcomes of ECMO in patients with prosthetic valves are comparable between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. Thrombosis might occur in both valve types and was associated with high mortality. ECMO could affect the long-term durability of the bioprosthetic valves.

We aimed to compare the outcomes of ECMO with and without IABP for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. The study included 103 patients who needed ECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. Patients were grouped according to the use of IABP into ECMO without IABP ( n = 43) and ECMO with IABP ( n = 60). The study endpoints were hospital complications, successful weaning, and survival. Patients with IABP had lower preoperative ejection fraction ( p = 0.002). There was no difference in stroke ( p = 0.97), limb ischemic ( p = 0.32), and duration of ICU stay ( p = 0.11) between groups. Successful weaning was non-significantly higher with IABP (36 (60%) vs 19 (44.19%); p = 0.11). Predictors of successful weaning were inversely related to the high pre-ECMO lactate levels (OR: 0.89; p = 0.01), active endocarditis (OR: 0.06; p = 0.02), older age (OR: 0.95; p = 0.02), and aortic valve replacement (OR: 0.26; p = 0.04). There was no difference in survival between groups ( p = 0.80). Our study did not support the routine use of IABP during ECMO support.