Why the study?
Data on gender-related differences in patients receiving veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after coronary surgery were lacking.
Does gender impact intraoperative and short-term outcomes in patients receiving vaECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after CABG?
Does gender impact intraoperative and short-term outcomes in patients receiving vaECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after CABG?
Gender does not appear to significantly impact short-term mortality in patients requiring vaECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after isolated coronary surgery.
Gender shows no impact on vaECMO outcomes after coronary surgery; leaves open sex-specific effects in broader postcardiotomy populations.
BACKGROUND: Gender is known to influence the pathophysiology and pathogenesis of the coronary vascular disease. Data on gender-related differences in patients with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation due to postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is lacking in current literature. We aimed to analyze the impact of gender on intraoperative and short-term outcomes of vaECMO patients after coronary surgery and postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2017, a total of 92 patients with PCS after CABG underwent vaECMO-implantation at our institution. After a 1:1 propensity score match (PSM) for relevant preoperative data, we identified a cohort of 32 patients, 16 males, and 16 females. Periprocedural and short-term outcome data were analyzed with respect to sex differences. After PSM, male patients showed a significantly smaller number of arterial grafts (0.4 ± 0.53 male vs 1.1 ± 0.7 female; p = 0.037). Thirty-day all-cause mortality did not differ between the groups (56% male vs 75% female; p = 0.262). In general, short-term outcome data were comparable without significant differences for the matched groups. CONCLUSION: Gender has no impact on patients with vaECMO therapy due to PCS in isolated coronary surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerfer et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: