Observational analysis identifies in-hospital mortality predictors in patients receiving ECMO and VAD as a bridge to heart transplantation, suggesting personalized management is crucial.
Background/Objectives: This study evaluates the outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), in venoarterial configuration, and short-term ventricular assist devices (VADs) used as a bridge to heart transplantation (HT). The primary objective was to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients on the urgent HT waiting list receiving short-term mechanical circulatory support, including direct ECMO-to-HT, direct short-term VAD-to-HT, and ECMO as a bridge to short-term VAD followed by HT (ECMO bridge-to-bridge). Secondary objectives included identifying predictors of in-hospital mortality in transplanted patients and assessing their long-term survival. Methods: A single-center, retrospective, observational, and analytical study conducted at a tertiary care hospital, including patients supported with ECMO and short-term VAD support as a bridge to HT between 2007 and 2024. Results: A total of 183 patients were included: 110 in the ECMO-to-HT group, 51 in the VAD-to-HT group, and 22 in the ECMO bridge-to-bridge group. Among them, 147 underwent HT (80.3%). Overall in-hospital mortality was 37.2% (115 of 183 patients survived), while in-hospital mortality among transplanted patients was 21.8% (115 of 147 survived). Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included infection, ECMO bridge-to-bridge strategy, higher body mass index (BMI), older age, and neurological complications. In the transplanted subgroup, predictors of both in-hospital and long-term mortality were ECMO support and older recipient age. Notably, a donor BMI exceeding that of the recipient by more than 10% was associated with improved survival. Conclusions: The complexity of patients requiring mechanical circulatory support and the physiological effects of different devices necessitate early, individualized management based on the etiology of cardiogenic shock and urgency status.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Domínguez-Massa et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: