Predictors of survival in adult patients receiving VA-ECMO in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Authors

  • Mazi Mohammed Alanazi Saudi and Jordanian Board Emergency Medicine, Emergency Department, Head of Emergency Research Unit, First Health Cluster, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ORCID: 0009-0003-5836-8086 Author
  • Saleh Ali Alzahrani Emergency Medicine & ICU Consultant, Saudi Fellowship Program, Adult Critical Care Department, Jeddah Second Health Cluster, King Abdullah Medical Complex, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Email: drsaz66@gmail.com; ORCID: 0009-0006-3789-4820 Author
  • Wed Yasser Mulla Saudi Board Emergency Resident Program, Emergency Department, Jeddah Second Health Cluster, King Abdullah Medical Complex, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Email: Wedmulla@gmail.com; ORCID: 0009-0004-8684-9175. Author
  • Albatool Mohammad Baz Saudi Board Emergency Resident Program, Emergency Department, Jeddah Second Health Cluster, King Abdullah Medical Complex, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Email: ala.batool@icloud.com; ORCID: 0009-0001-6172-8295 Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65759/mszex464

Keywords:

VA-ECMO, ECPR, emergency department, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest

Abstract

Background: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is used in ER as support for adult patients with refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. Survival differs because candidates age varieties, arrest profile, shock etiology, low-flow duration, metabolic injury, and early complications. This systematic review analyzed predictors of survival in adults receiving VA-ECMO or ECPR during emergency presentation. Methods: We conduct a systematic review according to PRISMA principles. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for adult studies evaluating VA-ECMO or ECPR in ER (emergency department cannulation, refractory cardiac arrest, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, in-hospital cardiac arrest, and acute cardiogenic shock requiring urgent circulatory support). We consider original studies reporting survival or neurological survival with clinical, biochemical, procedural, or scoring predictors. Results: Ten original studies were included in the final synthesis. The strongest predictors were younger age, witnessed arrest, shockable rhythm, shorter CPR or low-flow duration, lower lactate, higher pH or bicarbonate, preserved organ function, successful early revascularization in ischemic shock, and higher SAVE scores. Adverse predictors included older age, prolonged low-flow duration, asystole, severe acidosis, high lactate, renal injury, coagulopathy, major bleeding, vascular complications, and need for renal replacement therapy. Data in infarct-related cardiogenic shock found no survival advantage from routine early VA-ECMO in unselected patients. Conclusion: Survival after emergency VA-ECMO is determined by a cluster of pre-ECMO, intra-resuscitation, and early post-cannulation factors rather than a single variable. Candidate selection using age, arrest rhythm, low-flow time, lactate, pH, organ dysfunction, and validated scores offers a practical approach for emergency decision-making.

References

1. Badulak JH, Shinar Z, Owens GE, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the emergency department. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2020;38(4):945-959.

2. Richardson ASC, Tonna JE, Nanjayya V, Nixon P, Abrams DC, Raman L, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults: interim guideline consensus statement from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. ASAIO J. 2021;67(3):221-228.

3. Lorusso R, Shekar K, MacLaren G, Schmidt M, Pellegrino V, Meyns B, et al. ELSO interim guidelines for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult cardiac patients. ASAIO J. 2021;67(8):827-844.

4. Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Lagrand WK, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1922-1934.

5. Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, Patel J, Arabia F, Moriguchi J, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(2):610-616.

6. Rajsic S, Treml B, Jadzic D, Breitkopf R, Oberleitner C, Popovic Krneta M, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of mortality and complications. Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12(1):93.

7. Giordano L, Lucà F, Pezzuto B, Di Bella G, Chiarito M, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Predictive models in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):59.

8. Schmidt M, Burrell A, Roberts L, Bailey M, Sheldrake J, Rycus PT, et al. Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the Survival After Veno-Arterial-ECMO score. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(33):2246-2256.

9. Muller G, Flecher E, Lebreton G, Luyt CE, Trouillet JL, Bréchot N, et al. The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):370-378.

10. Chen WC, Huang KY, Yao CW, Wu CF, Liang SJ, Li CH, et al. The modified SAVE score: predicting survival using urgent veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within 24 hours of arrival at the emergency department. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):336.

11. Lee SW, Han KS, Park JS, Lee JS, Kim SJ. Prognostic indicators of survival and survival prediction model following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with sudden refractory cardiac arrest. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7(1):87.

12. Stub D, Bernard S, Pellegrino V, Smith K, Walker T, Sheldrake J, et al. Refractory cardiac arrest treated with mechanical CPR, hypothermia, ECMO and early reperfusion: the CHEER trial. Resuscitation. 2015;86:88-94.

13. Yannopoulos D, Bartos JA, Raveendran G, Walser E, Connett J, Murray TA, et al. Advanced reperfusion strategies for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and refractory ventricular fibrillation: the ARREST trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10265):1807-1816.

14. Inoue A, Hifumi T, Sakamoto T, Okamoto H, Kunikata J, Yokoi H, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a retrospective large cohort multicenter study in Japan. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):129.

15. Ostadal P, Rokyta R, Karasek J, Kruger A, Vondrakova D, Janotka M, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the therapy of cardiogenic shock: results of the ECMO-CS randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2023;147(6):454-464.

16. Banning AS, Sabaté M, Orban M, Gracey J, López-Sobrino T, Massberg S, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or standard care in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: the multicentre, randomised EURO SHOCK trial. EuroIntervention. 2023;19(6):482-492.

17. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Akin I, Behnes M, Rassaf T, Mahabadi AA, et al. Extracorporeal life support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(14):1286-1297.

18. Zeymer U, Freund A, Hochadel M, Ostadal P, Belohlavek J, Rokyta R, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2023;402(10410):1338-1346.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-22