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

Roberto Lorusso, Glenn Whitman, Milan Milojevic, Giuseppe Raffa, David M. McMullan, Udo Boeken, Jonathan Haft, Christian Bermudez, Ashish Shah, David A. D'Alessandro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support (PC-ECLS) in adult patients has been used only rarely but recent data have shown a remarkable increase in its use, almost certainly due to improved technology, ease of management, growing familiarity with its capability and decreased costs. Trends in worldwide in-hospital survival, however, rather than improving, have shown a decline in some experiences, likely due to increased use in more complex, critically ill patients rather than to suboptimal management. Nevertheless, PC-ECLS is proving to be a valuable resource for temporary cardiocirculatory and respiratory support in patients who would otherwise most likely die. Because a comprehensive review of PC-ECLS might be of use for the practitioner, and possibly improve patient management in this setting, the authors have attempted to create a concise, comprehensive and relevant analysis of all aspects related to PC-ECLS, with a particular emphasis on indications, technique, management, and avoidance of complications, appraisal of new approaches and ethics, education, and training.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2020

Keywords

  • cardiac surgery
  • consensus statements
  • extracorporeal life support
  • extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
  • guidelines
  • mechanical support
  • postcardiotomy failure

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of '2020 EACTS/ELSO/STS/AATS expert consensus on post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support in adult patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this