Balloon atrial septostomy versus left atrial cannulation for left heart decompression in children with dilated cardiomyopathy and myocarditis on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: An ELSO registry analysis.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Perfusion-Uk Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1177/02676591231220816
Tanya Perry, Jason W Greenberg, David S Cooper, Reanna Smith, Alexis L Benscoter, Wonshill Koh, Thomas D Ryan, David G Lehenbauer, Tyler N Brown, Farhan Zafar, Ravi R Thiagarajan, Todd M Sweberg, David Ls Morales
{"title":"Balloon atrial septostomy versus left atrial cannulation for left heart decompression in children with dilated cardiomyopathy and myocarditis on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: An ELSO registry analysis.","authors":"Tanya Perry, Jason W Greenberg, David S Cooper, Reanna Smith, Alexis L Benscoter, Wonshill Koh, Thomas D Ryan, David G Lehenbauer, Tyler N Brown, Farhan Zafar, Ravi R Thiagarajan, Todd M Sweberg, David Ls Morales","doi":"10.1177/02676591231220816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In children with myocarditis or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for cardiogenic shock, it is often necessary to decompress the left heart to minimize distension and promote myocardial recovery. We compare outcomes in those who underwent balloon atrial septostomy (BAS) versus direct left atrial (LA) drainage for left heart decompression in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) multicenter registry of patients ≤ 18 years with myocarditis or DCM on ECMO who underwent LA decompression. Descriptive and univariate statistics assessed association of patient factors with decompression type. Multivariable logistic regression sought independent associations with outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>369 pediatric ECMO runs were identified. 52% myocarditis, 48% DCM, overall survival 74%. 65% underwent BAS and 35% LA drainage. Patient demographics including age, weight, gender, race/ethnicity, diagnosis, pre-ECMO pH, mean airway pressure, and arrest status were similar. 89% in the BAS group were peripherally cannulated onto ECMO, versus 3% in the LA drainage group (<i>p</i> < .001). On multivariable analysis, LA drainage (OR 3.96; 95% CI, 1.47-10.711; <i>p</i> = .007), renal complication (OR 2.37; 95% CI, 1.41-4.01; <i>p</i> = .001), cardiac complication (OR 3.14; 95% CI, 1.70-5.82; <i>p</i> < .001), and non-white race/ethnicity (OR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.04-2.94; <i>p</i> = .035) were associated with greater odds of mortality. There was a trend toward more episodes of pulmonary hemorrhage in BAS (<i>n</i> = 17) versus LA drainage group (<i>n</i> = 3), <i>p</i> = .08. Comparing only those with central cannulation, LA drainage group was more likely to be discontinued from ECMO due to recovery (72%) versus the BAS group (48%), <i>p</i> = .032.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In children with myocarditis or DCM, there was a three times greater likelihood for mortality with LA drainage versus BAS for LA decompression. When adjusted for central cannulation groups only, there was better recovery in the LA drainage group and no difference in mortality. Further prospective evaluation is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":49707,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion-Uk","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion-Uk","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591231220816","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In children with myocarditis or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for cardiogenic shock, it is often necessary to decompress the left heart to minimize distension and promote myocardial recovery. We compare outcomes in those who underwent balloon atrial septostomy (BAS) versus direct left atrial (LA) drainage for left heart decompression in this population.

Methods: Retrospective study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) multicenter registry of patients ≤ 18 years with myocarditis or DCM on ECMO who underwent LA decompression. Descriptive and univariate statistics assessed association of patient factors with decompression type. Multivariable logistic regression sought independent associations with outcomes.

Results: 369 pediatric ECMO runs were identified. 52% myocarditis, 48% DCM, overall survival 74%. 65% underwent BAS and 35% LA drainage. Patient demographics including age, weight, gender, race/ethnicity, diagnosis, pre-ECMO pH, mean airway pressure, and arrest status were similar. 89% in the BAS group were peripherally cannulated onto ECMO, versus 3% in the LA drainage group (p < .001). On multivariable analysis, LA drainage (OR 3.96; 95% CI, 1.47-10.711; p = .007), renal complication (OR 2.37; 95% CI, 1.41-4.01; p = .001), cardiac complication (OR 3.14; 95% CI, 1.70-5.82; p < .001), and non-white race/ethnicity (OR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.04-2.94; p = .035) were associated with greater odds of mortality. There was a trend toward more episodes of pulmonary hemorrhage in BAS (n = 17) versus LA drainage group (n = 3), p = .08. Comparing only those with central cannulation, LA drainage group was more likely to be discontinued from ECMO due to recovery (72%) versus the BAS group (48%), p = .032.

Conclusions: In children with myocarditis or DCM, there was a three times greater likelihood for mortality with LA drainage versus BAS for LA decompression. When adjusted for central cannulation groups only, there was better recovery in the LA drainage group and no difference in mortality. Further prospective evaluation is warranted.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对使用体外膜氧合的扩张型心肌病和心肌炎患儿进行左心减压时,球囊心房间隔成形术与左心房插管术的比较:ELSO 登记分析。
导言:心肌炎或扩张型心肌病(DCM)患儿在接受体外膜氧合(ECMO)治疗心源性休克时,通常需要对左心减压,以尽量减少扩张,促进心肌恢复。我们比较了接受球囊心房隔膜切开术(BAS)和直接左心房引流术进行左心减压的患者的疗效:对体外生命支持组织(ELSO)多中心登记的接受 LA 减压术的 18 岁以下心肌炎或 DCM ECMO 患者进行回顾性研究。描述性和单变量统计评估了患者因素与减压类型的关联。多变量逻辑回归寻求与结果的独立关联:确定了 369 例小儿 ECMO 运行。52%患有心肌炎,48%患有DCM,总存活率为74%。65% 接受了 BAS,35% 接受了 LA 引流。包括年龄、体重、性别、种族/民族、诊断、ECMO 前 pH 值、平均气道压力和停搏状态在内的患者人口统计学特征相似。BAS 组 89% 的患者经外周插管进入 ECMO,而 LA 引流组只有 3%(P < .001)。在多变量分析中,LA 引流(OR 3.96;95% CI,1.47-10.711;p = .007)、肾脏并发症(OR 2.37;95% CI,1.41-4.01;p = .001)、心脏并发症(OR 3.14;95% CI,1.70-5.82;p < .001)和非白人种族/民族(OR 1.75;95% CI,1.04-2.94;p = .035)与更高的死亡几率相关。BAS 组(n = 17)与 LA 引流组(n = 3)相比,有肺出血次数增多的趋势,p = .08。仅对中央插管的患儿进行比较,LA 引流组因康复而停止 ECMO 的几率(72%)高于 BAS 组(48%),P = 0.032:结论:在心肌炎或 DCM 患儿中,LA 引流的死亡率是 LA 减压 BAS 的三倍。如果仅对中心插管组进行调整,LA 引流组的恢复情况更好,但死亡率没有差异。有必要进行进一步的前瞻性评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Perfusion-Uk
Perfusion-Uk 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perfusion is an ISI-ranked, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, which provides current information on all aspects of perfusion, oxygenation and biocompatibility and their use in modern cardiac surgery. The journal is at the forefront of international research and development and presents an appropriately multidisciplinary approach to perfusion science.
期刊最新文献
An investigation into the contributing factors to survival of ARDS patients supported by veno-venous ECMO. Cardiopulmonary bypass of acute type A aortic dissection during pregnancy at the 20th gestational week with maternal and foetal survival: A case report. Interaction of azithromycin and methylprednisolone with ex-vivo extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuits (ECMO). The safety of cell saver washing all shed mediastinal blood before re-transfusing it to the patient. Surgery for a giant atherosclerotic left main trifurcation saccular coronary artery aneurysm.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1