Key result
Among patients requiring extracorporeal life support, survival to discharge was lower in those with a cardiosurgical intervention compared to those without (29.5% vs 41.7%; P=0.004).
Why the study?
Does cardiosurgical intervention affect survival and quality of life in patients on extracorporeal life support?
Cohort (n=496)
Does cardiosurgical intervention affect survival and quality of life in patients on extracorporeal life support?
Absolute Event Rate: 29.5% vs 41.7%
p-value: p=0.004
Patients requiring extracorporeal life support have acceptable long-term survival and quality of life, though those requiring concurrent cardiosurgical intervention may have lower survival to discharge.
May warrant caution for concurrent surgery in ECLS patients; leaves open whether lower survival reflects confounding or causal effect.
OBJECTIVES: Information is lacking about long-term survival and quality of life (QOL) after treating patients on extracorporeal life support. METHODS: Outcome data were assessed by phone interviews, a QOL analysis using the EuroQol 5-dimensions questionnaire and a retrospective inquiry of the Regensburg ECMO Registry database for the decade 2006-2015. A statistical analysis was obtained by comparing patients with a cardiosurgical intervention (CS = 189 patients) with those without (w/oCS = 307 patients). RESULTS: Survival to discharge in the w/oCS group was higher than that in the CS group (w/oCS: 41.7% vs CS: 29.5%; P = 0.004). A Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significant difference between both groups in favour of patients w/oCS (log rank P = 0.02). This difference was no longer statistically significant after propensity score matching ( P = 0.07). The 1- and 2-year survival rates of discharged patients were 67% and 50% in the w/oCS group vs 60% and 45% in the CS group (log rank P = 0.29). Eighty-two patients answered the QOL questionnaire after a mean follow-up time of 4.2 ± 2.9 years. A total of 75% could handle their daily life; 57% were not limited in their usual activities. Mobility impairment was noted in 50%; 25% returned to work or school. There were no differences in the EuroQol 5-dimension indices between the patient groups. However, compared to a normative age-matched population, significantly lower indices were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival rates in patients requiring extracorporeal life support are acceptable with a probable advantage for patients without an operation and a narrowed QOL. The results are promising and encouraging, but there is also a need for improvement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Camboni et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Extracorporeal life support (n=496). Cardiosurgical intervention vs. No cardiosurgical intervention was evaluated on Survival to discharge (p=0.004). Among patients requiring extracorporeal life support, survival to discharge was lower in those with a cardiosurgical intervention compared to those without (29.5% vs 41.7%; P=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: