Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) devices has significantly increased in the last decades. Despite medical and technological advancements, a main challenge in the ECLS field remains the complex interaction between the human body, blood, and artificial materials. Indeed, blood exposure to artificial surfaces generates an unbalanced activation of the coagulation cascade, leading to hemorrhagic and thrombotic events. Over time, several anticoagulation and coatings methods have been introduced to address this problem. This narrative review summarizes trends, advantages, and disadvantages of anticoagulation and coating methods used in the ECLS field. Evidence was collected through a PubMed search and reference scanning. A group of experts was convened to openly discuss the retrieved references. Clinical practice in ECLS is still based on the large use of unfractionated heparin and, as an alternative in case of contraindications, nafamostat mesilate, bivalirudin, and argatroban. Other anticoagulation methods are under investigation, but none is about to enter the clinical routine. From an engineering point of view, material modifications have focused on commercially available biomimetic and biopassive surfaces and on the development of endothelialized surfaces. Biocompatible and bio-hybrid materials not requiring combined systemic anticoagulation should be the future goal, but intense efforts are still required to fulfill this purpose.

OBJECTIVES: Data about inhospital outcomes in bleeding complications during extracorporeal life support (ECLS) have been poorly investigated. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Patients reported in Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. PATIENTS: Data of 53.644 adult patients (greater than or equal to 18 yr old) mean age 51.4 ± 15.9 years, 33.859 (64.5%) male supported with single ECLS run between 01.01.2000 and 31.03.2020, and 19.748 cannulated for venovenous (V-V) ECLS and 30.696 for venoarterial (V-A) ECLS. INTERVENTIONS: Trends in bleeding complications, bleeding risk factors, and mortality. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Bleeding complications were reported in 14.786 patients (27.6%), more often in V-A ECLS compared with V-V (30.0% vs 21.9%; p < 0.001). Hospital survival in those who developed bleeding complications was lower in both V-V ECLS (49.6% vs 66.6%; p < 0.001) and V-A ECLS (33.9 vs 44.9%; p < 0.001). Steady decrease in bleeding complications in V-V and V-A ECLS was observed over the past 20 years (coef., –1.124; p < 0.001 and –1.661; p < 0.001). No change in mortality rates was reported over time in V-V or V-A ECLS (coef., –0.147; p = 0.442 and coef., –0.195; p = 0.139). Multivariate regression revealed advanced age, ecls duration, surgical cannulation, renal replacement therapy, prone positioning as independent bleeding predictors in v-v ecls and female gender, ecls duration, pre-ecls arrest or bridge to transplant, therapeutic hypothermia, and surgical cannulation in v-a ecls. CONCLUSIONS: A steady decrease in bleeding over the last 20 years, mostly attributable to surgical and cannula-site–related bleeding has been found in this large cohort of patients receiving ECLS support. However, there is not enough data to attribute the decreasing trends in bleeding to technological refinements alone. Especially reduction in cannulation site bleeding is also due to changes in timing, patient selection, and ultrasound guided percutaneous cannulation. Other types of bleeding, such as CNS, have remained stable, and overall bleeding remains associated with a persistent increase in mortality.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a challenging syndrome, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although pharmacological therapies are successful and can successfully control this acute cardiac illness, some patients remain refractory to drugs. Therefore, a more aggressive treatment strategy is needed. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) can be used to stabilise patients with decompensated heart failure. In the last two decades, the increased use of TCS has led to several kinds of devices becoming available. However, indications for TCS and device selection are part of a complex process. It is necessary to evaluate the severity of CS, any early and prompt haemodynamic resuscitation, prior TCS, specific patient risk factors, technical limitations and adequacy of resources and training, as well as an assessment of whether care would be futile. This article examines options for commonly used TCS devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps, a pulsatile percutaneous ventricular assist device (the iVAC), veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (Abiomed) and TandemHeart (LivaNova) percutaneous ventricular assist device.

Objective Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) cases. While veno‐venous extracorporeal life support (V‐V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID‐19 patients. Methods PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID‐19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow‐up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation‐to‐cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors. Results Twenty‐eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS‐only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID‐19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7–57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V‐V ECLS, 4.7% on veno‐arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V‐V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9–16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V‐V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy‐right ventricular assist device. Conclusion MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID‐19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID‐19.

published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

Introduction Although the technology used for extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has improved greatly in recent years, the application of these devices to the patient is quite complex and requires extensive training of team members both individually and together. Human factors is an area that addresses the activities, contexts, environments, and tools which interact with human behavior in determining overall system performance. Hypothesis Analyses of the cognitive behavior of ECLS teams and individual members of these teams with respect to the occurrence of human errors may identify additional opportunities to enhance safety in delivery of ECLS. Results The aim of this article is to support health‐care practitioners who perform ECLS, or who are starting an ECLS program, by establishing standards for the safe and efficient use of ECLS with a focus on human factor issues. Other key concepts include the importance of ECLS team leadership and management, as well as controlling the environment and the system to optimize patient care. Conclusion Expertise from other industries is extrapolated to improve patient safety through the application of simulation training to reduce error propagation and improve outcomes.

No abstract