Extracorporeal life support bridge for pulmonary hypertension: A high-volume single-center experience

Background: Application of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) for advanced pulmonary hypertension (PH) is evolving and may be deployed as a bridge to transplantation (BTT) or in one of several non-BTT uses, such as bridge to recovery (BTR) to the chronic PH clinical state in the setting of an acute PH trigger, bridge through non-transplant surgery (BTNTS), or bridge post-transplantation (BPT).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients with World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension Group 1, 3, 4, or 5 PH who received ECLS at Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital between January 1, 2010 and August 18, 2018. We describe patient characteristics, outcomes, and our approach to medical and surgical management of these patients.

Results: There were 98 patients with significant PH in the cohort (54 female; median age, 48 years [interquartile range, 32-58]). Of these, 44 (45%) patients with PH received ECLS as non-BTT with intent to recover back to their baseline functional state, optimize therapy, or support through a definitive surgery, including 19 BTR, 17 BTNTS, and 8 BPT, and 54 (55%) patients received ECLS as BTT. In the overall cohort, 67 (68.4%) patients received venoarterial ECLS and 31 (31.6%) received venovenous (VV) ECLS. Out of 83 patients, 52 (63%) were liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation, and 85.2% of BTT patients with PH ambulated while on ECLS. Management of PH medications was individualized, often requiring titration with use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators increased after cannulation in non-BTT. Overall 30-day survival was 73.5%, survival to ECLS decannulation was 66.3%, and survival to hospital discharge was 54.1%. All 8 BPT patients (100%) survived to hospital discharge, 64.7% of BTNTS patients survived to hospital discharge, and 32 (59.3%) BTT patients survived to lung transplantation. Early-era use of VV-ECLS for BTT had worse survival to discharge than those initially configured with venoarterial ECLS, impacting the overall survival and leading to limited use of VV-ECLS in the current era for BPT, BTNTS, and select BTR cases.

Conclusions: ECLS instituted by a specialized, multidisciplinary team has a role in the management of advanced PH as BTT or as non-BTT (including BTR, BTNTS, and BPT). Careful selection of ECLS cannulation configurations, patient-specific optimization of PH medical therapies, and avoidance of endotracheal intubation may be effective strategies in managing these complex patients.