» Articles » PMID: 38436727

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Immunocompromised Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: a Cohort Study and Propensity-weighted Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: The outcomes of immunocompromised patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) are seldom documented, making ECMO candidacy decisions challenging. This study aims (1) to report outcomes of immunocompromised patients treated with VA-ECMO, (2) to identify pre-ECMO predictors of 90-day mortality, (3) to assess the impact of immunodepression on 90-day mortality, and (4) to describe the main ECMO-related complications.

Methods: This is a retrospective, propensity-weighted study conducted in two French experienced ECMO centers.

Results: From January 2006 to January 2022, 177 critically ill immunocompromised patients (median (interquartile range, IQR) age 49 (32-60) years) received VA-ECMO. The main causes of immunosuppression were long-term corticosteroids/immunosuppressant treatment (29%), hematological malignancy (26%), solid organ transplant (20%), and solid tumor (13%). Overall 90-day and 1-year mortality were 70% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63-77%) and 75% (95% CI 65-79%), respectively. Older age and higher pre-ECMO lactate were independently associated with 90-day mortality. Across immunodepression causes, 1-year mortality ranged from 58% for patients with infection by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or asplenia, to 89% for solid organ transplant recipients. Hemorrhagic and infectious complications affected 39% and 54% of patients, while more than half the stay in intensive care unit (ICU) was spent on antibiotics. In a propensity score-weighted model comparing the 177 patients with 942 non-immunocompromised patients experiencing cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, immunocompromised status was independently associated with a higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio 2.53, 95% CI 1.72-3.79).

Conclusion: Immunocompromised patients undergoing VA-ECMO treatment face an unfavorable prognosis, with higher 90-day mortality compared to non-immunocompromised patients. This underscores the necessity for thorough evaluation and careful selection of ECMO candidates within this frail population.

Citing Articles

Lactate metabolism and lactylation in cardiovascular disease: novel mechanisms and therapeutic targets.

Zhang H, Zhao J, Yu J, Zhang X, Ran S, Wang S Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 11:1489438.

PMID: 39664763 PMC: 11631895. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1489438.


Critical insights into venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation outcomes in immunocompromised patients: addressing uncertainties in cause of death and treatment strategies.

Tanabe Y, Ohshimo S, Shime N Intensive Care Med. 2024; 50(8):1395-1396.

PMID: 38990332 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-024-07536-y.

References
1.
Thiagarajan R, Barbaro R, Rycus P, McMullan D, Conrad S, Fortenberry J . Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry International Report 2016. ASAIO J. 2016; 63(1):60-67. DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000475. View

2.
Danial P, Hajage D, Nguyen L, Mastroianni C, Demondion P, Schmidt M . Percutaneous versus surgical femoro-femoral veno-arterial ECMO: a propensity score matched study. Intensive Care Med. 2018; 44(12):2153-2161. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-018-5442-z. View

3.
Lueck C, Stadler M, Koenecke C, Hoeper M, Dammann E, Schneider A . Improved short- and long-term outcome of allogeneic stem cell recipients admitted to the intensive care unit: a retrospective longitudinal analysis of 942 patients. Intensive Care Med. 2018; 44(9):1483-1492. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-018-5347-x. View

4.
Benoit D, Vandewoude K, Decruyenaere J, Hoste E, Colardyn F . Outcome and early prognostic indicators in patients with a hematologic malignancy admitted to the intensive care unit for a life-threatening complication. Crit Care Med. 2003; 31(1):104-12. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-200301000-00017. View

5.
Larche J, Azoulay E, Fieux F, Mesnard L, Moreau D, Thiery G . Improved survival of critically ill cancer patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2003; 29(10):1688-95. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-003-1957-y. View