Extracorporeal life support and cardiopulmonary bypass for central airway surgery: A systematic review

• Published in: Artificial organs 2022-03, Vol.46 (3), p.362-374
• Main Authors: O'Malley, Thomas J., Yost, Colin C., Prochno, Kyle W., Saxena, Abhiraj, Grenda, Tyler R., Evans, Nathaniel R., Cowan, Scott W., Morris, Rohinton J., Massey, Howard Todd, Tchantchaleishvili, Vakhtang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Airway Management - methods; Anastomosis; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; central airway surgery; extracorporeal life support; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Heart surgery; Humans; Intubation; Oxygenation; Patients; Respiratory System - surgery; Respiratory tract; Stenosis; Surgery; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0160-564X; 1525-1594
• DOI: 10.1111/aor.14084

Background Major airway surgery can pose a complex problem to perioperative central airway management. Adjuncts to advanced ventilation strategies have included cardiopulmonary bypass, veno‐arterial, or veno‐venous extracorporeal life support. We performed a systematic review to assess the existing evidence utilizing these strategies. Methods An electronic search was conducted to identify studies written in English reporting the use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) during central airway surgery. Thirty‐six articles consisting of 78 patients were selected and patient‐level data were analyzed. Results Median patient age was 47 [IQR: 34‐53] and 59.0% (46/78) were male. Indications for surgery included central airway or mediastinal cancer in 57.7% (45/78), lesion or injury in 15.4% (12/78), and stenosis in 12.8% (10/78). Support was initiated pre‐operatively in 9.9% (7/71) and at the time of induction in 55.3% (42/76). It was most commonly used at the time of tracheal resection/repair [93.2% (68/73)], intubation of the tracheal stump [94.4% (68/72)], and re‐anastomosis [94.2% (65/69)]; 13.7% (10/73) patients were supported post‐operatively. The most commonly performed surgery was tracheal repair or resection in 70.3% (52/74). Median hospital stay was 12 [8, 25] days and in‐hospital mortality was 7.9% (6/76). There was no significant difference in survival between the three groups (p = .54). Conclusions Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers versatility in timing, surgical approach, and ECLS runtime that makes it a viable addition to the surgical armamentarium for treating complex central airway pathologies. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers versatility in timing, surgical approach, and extracorporeal life support runtime that makes it a viable addition to the surgical armamentarium for treating complex central airway pathologies with acceptable mortality when compared to other modalities. (A) Study PRISMA (B) overall mortality (C) mortality by modality (D) mortality by emergent versus non‐emergent.