View : 228 Download: 0

Association of Prophylactic Distal Perfusion Cannulation With Mortality in Patients Receiving Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Title
Association of Prophylactic Distal Perfusion Cannulation With Mortality in Patients Receiving Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Authors
LeeHyeok-HeeJangWoo JinAhnChul-MinChunWoo JungOhJu HyeonParkYong HwanSeung-JunHongSung-JinYangJeong HoonKimJung-SunHyeon ChangByeong-KeukYuCheol WoongHyun-JoongBaeJang-WhanKoYoung-GukChoiDonghoonGwonHyeon-CheolMyeong-KiYangsoo
Ewha Authors
장우진
SCOPUS Author ID
장우진scopusscopus
Issue Date
2023
Journal Title
American Journal of Cardiology
ISSN
0002-9149JCR Link
Citation
American Journal of Cardiology vol. 207, pp. 418 - 425
Keywords
distal perfusionextracorporeal membrane oxygenationmortalityprophylaxis
Publisher
Elsevier Inc.
Indexed
SCIE; SCOPUS WOS scopus
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Prophylactic distal perfusion cannulation (PDPC) is protectively associated with limb ischemia in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) receiving femoral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). However, evidence supporting its benefits beyond limb ischemia reduction is scarce. We aimed to investigate whether PDPC, compared with no-PDPC, is associated with a lower risk of mortality in patients receiving VA-ECMO. From a multicenter registry, we identified 479 patients who underwent VA-ECMO support for refractory CS. The association of PDPC with 30-day mortality was assessed using multiple methods, including instrumental variable analysis, overlap weighting, and propensity score matching. Of the 479 patients, 154 (32.2%) received PDPC. The 30-day mortality rate was 33.1% in the PDPC group and 53.2% in the no-PDPC group. The instrumental variable analysis showed a protective association of PDPC with 30-day mortality (absolute risk difference −16.7%, 95% confidence interval −31.3% to −2.1%; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.96). The findings were consistent in the overlap-weighted analysis (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.98) and in the propensity score–matched analysis (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.00). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes, including stroke, ECMO site bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, and sepsis, between PDPC and no-PDPC. In conclusion, PDPC was associated with a lower risk of mortality at 30 days in patients with CS receiving VA-ECMO. The efficacy and safety of PDPC merit evaluation in future randomized studies. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02985008. © 2023 Elsevier Inc.
DOI
10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.07.149
Appears in Collections:
의료원 > 의료원 > Journal papers
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

BROWSE