Introduction: Various cannulation strategies for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) support are currently in use according to the clinical urgency and experience of the rescuing team. Although central V-A ECMO is considered more effective than a peripheral approach, the superiority of one cannulation configuration instead of another remains a controversial subject. This study mainly aims to compare the contribution of V-A ECMO circulatory support modalities to patients' improvement according to various cannulation site strategies and additional usage of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP).
Methods: The study design involved the categorization of all patients into two groups: isolated V-A ECMO support and V-A ECMO plus IABP support. Secondly, we divided the patients into four groups considering V-A ECMO cannulation sites, such as central (aorto-atrial), axillo-femoral, femoro-femoral, and jugulo-femoral. We analyzed the parameters regarding the outcome for each group.
Results: When comparing cannulation sites in relation to laboratory parameters for assessing organ perfusion, no statistically significant differences were observed among the groups. We found no statistically significant result within the groups affecting organ perfusion. The complication rates were higher in patients with concomitant IABP support, but the difference was not statistically significant likewise.
Conclusion: V-A ECMO provides effective perfusion, no matter which cannulation site is preferred during the decision-making process, and the utilization of IABP support has no additional contribution to the outcomes. We believe that the most suitable strategy should be a tailor-made decision according to the clinical status of patients, the pathology, urgency, and cost-effectiveness.
Keywords: Cardiovascular System; Catherization; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Perfusion.