Elsevier

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Volume 28, Issue 8, August 2022, Pages 1326-1336
Journal of Cardiac Failure

Review Article
Left Ventricular Unloading During Extracorporeal Life Support: Current Practice

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.12.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Different left ventricular (LV) venting strategies allow varying degrees of LV unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal life support.

  • LV venting should be individualized to the patient and the venoarterial extracorporeal life support weaning strategy.

  • Success of LV unloading can be assessed invasively (pulmonary artery catheter) and noninvasively (echocardiography).

Abstract

Venoarterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) is a powerful tool that can provide complete cardiopulmonary support for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. However, VA-ECLS increases left ventricular (LV) afterload, resulting in greater myocardial oxygen demand, which can impair myocardial recovery and worsen pulmonary edema. These complications can be ameliorated by various LV venting strategies to unload the LV. Evidence suggests that LV venting improves outcomes in VA-ECLS, but there is a paucity of randomized trials to help guide optimal strategy and the timing of venting. In this review, we discuss the available evidence regarding LV venting in VA-ECLS, explain important hemodynamic principles involved, and propose a practical approach to LV venting in VA-ECLS.

Section snippets

Indications for VA-ECLS in CS

Whereas VA-ECLS was originally intended to provide temporary mechanical support during cardiac surgery, its indications have expanded rapidly over the past decade.10,11 VA-ECLS has been successfully used to treat CS of various causes, including acute myocardial infarction, refractory ventricular tachycardia, acute decompensated heart failure, and fulminant myocarditis.2,5 In recent times, VA-ECLS has also been shown to improve outcomes in patients with refractory cardiac arrest (as

Hemodynamic Effects of VA-ECLS and the Usefulness of LV Venting

CS is defined by hypotension (unsupported systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg for ≥30 minutes), decreased cardiac index (<2.2 L/min/m2), and elevated left-sided pressures (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] of >15 mm Hg) in the presence of end-organ hypoperfusion.15 Fig. 1A shows a pressure–volume loop that illustrates the function of a normal heart.16 In CS, the pressure–volume loop shifts to the right as contractility decreases and filling volumes increase in an attempt by the heart

Timing and Patient Selection for LV Venting

Optimal patient selection and timing for LV venting remains uncertain because few robust prospective studies have evaluated this question.27,28 Commonly cited indications for LV venting include LV distension, an elevated PCWP, a low or absent pulse pressure, a lack of aortic valve opening, North–South syndrome, pulmonary edema, and lung injury.5, 6, 7,11 Computational modeling has identified low ejection fraction and elevated PCWP before ECLS initiation as important predictors of LV distension,

Optimization of LV Unloading

For maximal benefit, LV venting must provide optimal LV unloading. There is no clear consensus on what constitutes optimal LV unloading, Several modalities are available to measure LV unloading, including intracardiac pressures with a PAC, echocardiography, measuring biomarkers of LA distension such as brain natriuretic peptide, and assessing end-tidal CO2 in intubated patients. Simulation studies aim to better estimate the optimal parameters of LV unloading in ECLS.33

Although the value of a

Duration of LV Venting

Several questions remain about the optimal time to discontinue LV venting. Several centers that used a combination of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella P-VAD support (termed “ECMELLA”) as their venting modality describe a strategy of leaving the P-VAD in place to facilitate weaning completely off VA-ECLS, then slowly weaning the P-VAD support.19,25 One meta-analysis showed that the continued use of an LV vent throughout was associated with higher rates of successful weaning from

Effectiveness of Specific LV Venting Strategies

Multiple strategies have been used to offload the LV, including medical unloading (eg, with inotropes, vasodilators, or diuretics), decreasing arterial ECLS flows, IABP, ECMELLA, atrial septostomy, and surgical venting.6,20, 21, 22,24,41,42 As discussed elsewhere in this article, no one solution is ideal; medical unloading may be insufficient because the use of inotropes can further increase myocardial oxygen demand, especially in patients who may not tolerate a decrease in ECLS flow.9,11 Thus,

Challenges Associated With LV Venting

LV venting incurs certain risks, which vary with the type of LV vent used. A large meta-analysis of patients vented while on VA-ECLS (primarily with IABP, but ECMELLA was used in some cases) showed that vented patients had higher rates of hemolysis; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes, including bleeding. Similar findings were seen in a study of ECMELLA patients, who had better survival than patients with no LV venting despite having higher rates of hemolysis and renal

Weaning LV Venting and VA-ECLS Support

In the decision to wean temporary MCS, including VA-ECLS, the central criterion is adequate myocardial recovery to support metabolic demands. Readiness-to-wean criteria as defined by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization include improved arterial pulsatility and cardiac contractility, minimal vasoactive agent use to maintain a mean arterial pressure or greater than 60 mm Hg, and adequate oxygen delivery.66 Including hemodynamic assessment (central venous pressure of ≤15 mm Hg, PCWP of

Future Studies: More Data Needed

Although conducting randomized trials in CS is difficult, many questions remain regarding LV venting in VA-ECLS. There is an urgent need to obtain further data regarding almost all aspects of LV venting, including identifying which patients will benefit from LV venting, defining the optimal technique for LV offloading for specific populations according to the cause of their CS, determining the optimal timing and goals of LV venting, identifying the best weaning strategies, and even examining

Comprehensive CS Management

CS remains one of the leading indications for cardiac intensive care unit admission, and caring for these patients is complex and resource intensive.72 Core competencies of a cardiac intensive care unit caring for patients with CS include the ability to characterize and diagnose CS, rapidly place and maintain a variety of temporary MCS devices including VA-ECLS, and a multidisciplinary shock team. Owing to paucity of randomized controlled trials guiding the care of patients with CS supported

Conclusions

VA-ECLS is an extraordinary tool in the contemporary management of CS, although it is a tool whose use carries the risk of impairing myocardial recovery and worsening pulmonary function because of retrograde aortic perfusion. LV venting represents a means of limiting these complications of VA-ECLS, but venting itself presents unique challenges. Further research will be necessary to improve patient selection and define optimal strategies to offload the LV in VA-ECLS.

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgments

Stephen N. Palmer, PhD, ELS, of the Department of Scientific Publications at the Texas Heart Institute, contributed to the editing of the manuscript.

References (74)

  • A Rali et al.

    Left ventricular support in VA-ECMO: national trends and outcomes (2007-2014)

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2019)
  • GC. Stewart

    Finding the right time and place to vent

    JACC Heart Fail

    (2018)
  • V Dzavik et al.

    Unloading is not the only question in cardiogenic shock

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2019)
  • AR Garan et al.

    Complete hemodynamic profiling with pulmonary artery catheters in cardiogenic shock is associated with lower in-hospital mortality

    JACC Heart Fail

    (2020)
  • GA Hernandez et al.

    Trends in utilization and outcomes of pulmonary artery catheterization in heart failure with and without cardiogenic shock

    J Card Fail

    (2019)
  • S Tepper et al.

    Left ventricular unloading by Impella device versus surgical vent during extracorporeal life support

    Ann Thorac Surg

    (2017)
  • DM Ouweneel et al.

    Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2017)
  • M Seyfarth et al.

    A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2008)
  • M Abaunza et al.

    Incidence and prognosis of vascular complications after percutaneous placement of left ventricular assist device

    J Vasc Surg

    (2015)
  • K Amancherla et al.

    Limited balloon atrial septostomy for left ventricular unloading in peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

    J Card Fail

    (2021)
  • R Lorusso et al.

    2020 EACTS/ELSO/STS/AATS expert consensus on post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support in adult patients

    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

    (2021)
  • NC Cavarocchi et al.

    Weaning of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation using continuous hemodynamic transesophageal echocardiography

    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

    (2013)
  • BW Park et al.

    Pulse pressure as a prognostic marker in patients receiving extracorporeal life support

    Resuscitation

    (2013)
  • VK Randhawa et al.

    A pragmatic approach to weaning temporary mechanical circulatory support: a state-of-the-art review

    JACC Heart Fail

    (2021)
  • K Kapoor et al.

    A collaborative cardiologist-intensivist management model improves cardiac intensive care unit outcomes

    J Am Coll Cardiol

    (2017)
  • BN Tehrani et al.

    A standardized and comprehensive approach to the management of cardiogenic shock

    JACC Heart Fail

    (2020)
  • Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. ECLS registry report. Available at...
  • E Lusebrink et al.

    Prevention and treatment of pulmonary congestion in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock

    Eur Heart J

    (2020)
  • LK Truby et al.

    Incidence and implications of left ventricular distention during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support

    ASAIO J

    (2017)
  • P Rao et al.

    Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest

    Circ Heart Fail

    (2018)
  • PM Eckman et al.

    Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: an introduction for the busy clinician

    Circulation

    (2019)
  • A Shaukat et al.

    Outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for complex high-risk elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a single-center experience and review of the literature

    J Invasive Cardiol

    (2018)
  • D Yannopoulos et al.

    The evolving role of the cardiac catheterization laboratory in the management of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association

    Circulation

    (2019)
  • DA Baran et al.

    SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock

    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv

    (2019)
  • AS Rali et al.

    Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: Lifeline of modern day CICU

    J Intensive Care Med

    (2021)
  • HK Lamba et al.

    Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in INTERMACS-1 patients

    J Artif Organs

    (2021 May 13)
  • AA Al-Fares et al.

    Optimal strategy and timing of left ventricular venting during veno-arterial extracorporeal life support for adults in cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Circ Heart Fail

    (2019)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text