Journal of Chest Surgery

The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (대한심장혈관흉부외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting after Extracorporeal Life Support in Patients with Cardiac Arrest or Cardiogenic Shock

  • Kim, Younghwan (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Yang-Hyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Yang, Ji-Hyuk (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Sung, Kiick (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Young Tak (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Wook Sung (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Heemoon (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Sejong Hospital) ;
  • Cho, Su Hyun (Extracorporeal Perfusion Team, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2018.08.02
  • Accepted : 2018.11.27
  • Published : 2019.04.05
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is used as a bridge to revascularization in high-risk patients with ischemic heart disease. We reviewed our experiences of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after ECLS in patients with cardiac arrest or refractory cardiogenic shock. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 4,616 patients who underwent CABG at our institution between May 2006 and February 2017. We identified patients who underwent CABG following ECLS for cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Twenty-three patients (0.5% of all CABG cases) were enrolled in the analysis. Their median age was 65 years (Q1-Q3, 58-77 years). Nine patients (39.1%) were diagnosed with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Mechanical complications after acute myocardial infarction, including acute mitral regurgitation, left ventricular rupture, and ventricular septal defect, occurred in 9 patients (39.1%). Results: The median time from cardiopulmonary resuscitation to ECLS initiation was 25 minutes (Q1-Q3, 18.5-28.5 minutes). Conventional CABG was performed in 10 patients (43.5%) who underwent concomitant intracardiac procedures. Postoperative ECLS was required in 16 patients (69.5%). The rate of successful ECLS weaning was 91.3% (n=21). There were 6 early mortalities (26.1%). Conclusion: CABG after ECLS was very rare in real-world circumstances. Although the early mortality rate was high, the risk of mortality may be acceptable under such devastating circumstances.

Keywords

References

  1. Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, Gurwitz J, Bigelow C, Gore JM. Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1162-8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199904153401504
  2. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, et al. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2005;294:448-54. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.294.4.448
  3. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: SHOCK investigators: Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 1999;341:625-34. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199908263410901
  4. Chung SY, Tong MS, Sheu JJ, et al. Short-term and long-term prognostic outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock undergoing early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol 2016;223:412-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.068
  5. Sheu JJ, Tsai TH, Lee FY, et al. Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1810-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181e8acf7
  6. Santarpino G, Ruggieri VG, Mariscalco G, et al. Outcome in patients having salvage coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:1193-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.07.034
  7. Gaudino M, Glineur D, Mazza A, et al. Long-term survival and quality of life of patients undergoing emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for postinfarction cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;101:960-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.08.066
  8. Chung ES, Lim C, Lee HY, Choi JH, Lee JS, Park KH. Results of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support before coronary reperfusion in cardiogenic shock with acute myocardial infarction. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;44:273-8. https://doi.org/10.5090/kjtcs.2011.44.4.273
  9. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2017;377:2419-32. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1710261
  10. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Bates ER, et al. Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry: Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock? J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1123-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00875-5
  11. O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2013;127:e362-425.
  12. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1287-96. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1208410
  13. Kagawa E, Dote K, Kato M, et al. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiac Arrest?: rapid-response extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and intra-arrest percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 2012;126:1605-13. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.067538
  14. Hosmane VR, Mustafa NG, Reddy VK, et al. Survival and neurologic recovery in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction resuscitated from cardiac arrest. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;53:409-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.076
  15. Michler RE, Smith PK, Parides MK, et al. Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1932-41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1602003
  16. Mihaljevic T, Lam BK, Rajeswaran J, et al. Impact of mitral valve annuloplasty combined with revascularization in patients with functional ischemic mitral regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2191-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.02.043
  17. Di Mauro M, Di Giammarco G, Vitolla G, et al. Impact of no-to-moderate mitral regurgitation on late results after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:2128-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.01.061
  18. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2013;382:1638-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61783-3

Cited by

  1. Outcomes of VA-ECMO with and without Left Centricular (LV) Decompression Using Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (IABP) versus Other LV Decompression Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.26, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.924009
  2. Coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome: current evidence base and unresolved issues vol.26, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15829/1560-4071-2021-4259