Background: The optimal venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) cannulation strategy in patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is still debatable. Studies evaluating the effect of cannulation strategy on long-term survival are scarce.
Objectives: We investigated the impact of central versus peripheral cannulation strategy for ECMO insertion on hospital outcomes and survival in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock patients.
Methods: This retrospective study involved 101 patients who had either central or peripheral ECMO due to postcardiotomy shock between June 2009 and December 2020. Study endpoints were limb ischemia, bleeding, blood transfusion, wound infection, and overall survival.
Results: Eighty-four patients received central (c) ECMO, and 17 patients had peripheral (p) ECMO. In the group of pECMO, limb ischemia was significantly higher (5 [29.41%] vs 6 [7.14%]; p = .01). Other endpoints were similar in both groups. Thirty-day mortality was nonsignificantly different between both cohorts (cECMO 34 [41.67%] vs pECMO 10 [58.82%]; p = .29). However, overall survival was better with cECMO (Log-rank p = .02). Patients' age [HR: 1.04 (95% CI: 1.02-1.06); p = .001], pECMO [HR: 1.98 (95% CI: 1.11-3.55), p = .002] and presence of infective endocarditis [HR: 3.54 (95% CI: 1.52-8.24), p = .03] were significant predictors of overall mortality.
Conclusions: Peripheral ECMO was associated with an increased risk of limb ischemia; however, bleeding, blood transfusion, infection, and 30-day mortality were comparable to central ECMO. Central cannulation was associated with a better 1-year survival rate. Therefore, central cannulation might be the preferred strategy for patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.
Keywords: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; cannulation; survival.