Efficacy of a temporary CentriMag ventricular assist device in acute fulminant myocarditis patients revived with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

BACKGROUND: Although extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can provide emergency systemic perfusion for acute fulminant myocarditis (AFM), the mortality rate remains extremely high, especially in those undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). Temporary ventricular assist device (VAD) can provide a more physiological blood flow direction and better subsequent organ perfusion than ECLS. We investigated temporary VAD efficacy in ECPR-revived AFM patients. METHODS: During January 2012-May 2019, we retrospectively recruited 22 AFM patients with hemodynamic collapse and ECPR; 11 underwent ECLS only and 11 underwent additional VAD support after ECLS. Systemic perfusion was compared via laboratory biochemistry at post-ECPR days 2 (D2) and 4 (D4). Consciousness and cardiac function were assessed through the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and echocardiography, respectively. All major complications and causes of mortality were recorded; 30-day survival was analyzed and risk factors were predicted. RESULTS: The VAD group had significantly better hemodynamic improvement; more inotropes being tapered at D2 and D4; better data representative of systemic perfusion, including albumin, pH, bicarbonate, and lactate levels at D4; and better 30-day survival (72.7% vs. 27.2%, p = 0.033). The causes of mortality included central failure, multiple organ failure, and bacteremia with sepsis. The risk factors included lethal dysrhythmia before ECLS, GCS <5 at D2, and elevated cardiac enzymes at D4. CONCLUSION: For AFM patients, temporary VAD could provide better systemic perfusion and organ preservation than ECLS. VAD had better survival, including improved recovery and successful transplantation. Hence, temporary VAD should be considered if ECLS cannot revive the sustained cardiogenic shock.