Fulminant myocarditis managed by peripheral VA-ECMO carries a high in-hospital mortality of 41%, with older age and ECMO-related complications serving as key predictors of poor prognosis.
Identifies older age and complications as mortality predictors in VA-ECMO for fulminant myocarditis; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) support is effective in patients with cardiogenic shock or fatal arrhythmia due to fulminant myocarditis. The clinical courses of fulminant myocarditis are still uncertain; therefore, it is difficult to determine the appropriate time for discontinuing ECMO or converting to a ventricular assist device. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prognosis of patients with fulminant myocarditis managed by ECMO. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive patients with fulminant myocarditis managed by peripheral venoarterial ECMO between 1999 and 2013 were enrolled. RESULTS: Survival to discharge was 59% (13 patients), and in-hospital mortality was 41% (9 patients). The age in the survivor group was significantly lower than that in the non-survivor group (survivor group vs. non-survivor group; 36.5 ± 4.1 vs. 60.2 ± 5.0 years, p = 0.001). Although the ECMO support duration was similar between the groups (181 ± 22 vs. 177 ± 31 h), the rate of complication related to ECMO was significantly lower in the survivor group (15.3% vs. 66.6%, p = 0.02). When comparing the laboratory data during ECMO management between the groups, the serum bilirubin level on day 7 was significantly lower in the survivor group (total: 4.6 ± 2.8 vs. 13.7 ± 10.8 mg/dL, p = 0.014; direct: 2.2 ± 0.5 vs. 9.8 ± 4.5 mg/dL, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Fulminant myocarditis is associated with high mortality rates despite ECMO. An older age and complications related to ECMO are associated with poor prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakamura et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: