Key result
In patients requiring ECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, survival at 36 months was similar between those with bioprosthetic (25.34%) and mechanical valves (36.36%; p=0.93).
Why the study?
Limited data evaluated the outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with prosthetic valves.
Does ECMO support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock have different outcomes in patients with bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves?
Cohort (n=71)
Does ECMO support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock have different outcomes in patients with bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves?
Absolute Event Rate: 25.34% vs 36.36%
p-value: p=.93
ECMO support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock yields comparable survival and complication rates between patients with bioprosthetic and mechanical valves, though thrombosis remains a high-mortality complication.
Comparable ECMO outcomes support no valve-type preference in postcardiotomy shock; leaves open thrombosis prevention strategies in observational data.
Background Limited data evaluated the outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with prosthetic valves. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of ECMO support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in patients with mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves. Methods This retrospective study included patients with ECMO support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after valve replacement. Patients were grouped into bioprosthetic ( n = 49) and mechanical valve ( n = 22) groups. Results There were no differences in ECMO duration, inotropic support, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), stroke, duration of ICU, and hospital stay between groups. Postoperative thrombosis occurred in 2 patients with bioprosthetic valves (5.41%) and 2 with mechanical valves (14.29%), p = .30. All patients with thrombosis had central ECMO cannulation, concomitant IABP, and inotropic support during ECMO. All thrombi were related to the mitral valve. Three patients with thrombi had hospital mortality. Survival at 6, 12, and 36 months for bioprosthetic valve patients was 30.88%, 28.55%, and 25.34% and for mechanical valves was 36.36% for all time intervals (Log-rank p = .93). One patient had bioprosthetic aortic valve endocarditis after 1 year. Three patients with bioprosthetic valves had structural valve degeneration after 1, 2, and 5 years. Conclusions Outcomes of ECMO in patients with prosthetic valves are comparable between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. Thrombosis might occur in both valve types and was associated with high mortality. ECMO could affect the long-term durability of the bioprosthetic valves.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arafat et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after valve replacement (n=71). Bioprosthetic valves vs. Mechanical valves was evaluated on Survival at 36 months (p=.93). In patients requiring ECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, survival at 36 months was similar between those with bioprosthetic (25.34%) and mechanical valves (36.36%; p=0.93).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: