Routine Versus Provisional Distal Perfusion Catheter Placement in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support

Overview

A prospective, multi-center, open label, randomized controlled, superiority trial to compare clinical outcomes between routine distal perfusion catheter (DPC) insertion versus provisional distal perfusion catheter (DPC) insertion in the occurrence of sign or symptom of acute limb ischemia in patients undergoing mechanical circulatory support (MCS) through femoral artery approach.

Acute limb ischemia is a well-recognized vascular complication following peripheral mechanical circulatory support (MCS) including veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or a percutaneous microaxial ventricular assist device (Impella) via femoral arterial cannulation, with reported incidence rates ranging up to 10-30% of patients. Distal perfusion catheter (DPC) has been introduced as a strategy to restore antegrade flow distal to the femoral arterial cannula, aiming to mitigate ischemic complications by augmenting perfusion through antegrade flow into the superficial femoral artery. Current practice guidance from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) supports the use of ipsilateral DPC placement at the time of peripheral VA-ECMO cannulation to reduce the risk of limb ischemia and recommends monitoring for adequate flow using Doppler or near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). However, these recommendations are predominantly based on observational studies and expert consensus, and do not stem from randomized controlled trial evidence. Current expert consensus and related guidelines describe that routine prophylactic DPC insertion should be considered in patients undergoing VA-ECMO as Class IIa (Level of evidence B) recommendation. Several observational cohort studies have associated routine prophylactic DPC with reduced limb ischemia compared with no DPC placement, yet these are limited by confounding bias and variability in clinical practice patterns. Retrospective data suggested that delayed or rescue insertion after onset of limb ischemia may be less effective at preventing major ischemic sequelae than earlier DPC insertion strategies. Given the absence of robust evidence from randomized controlled trial, it remains uncertain whether a strategy of routine prophylactic DPC insertion would be superior over a provisional DPC insertion guided by clinical monitoring in terms of limb ischemia reduction, limb-related morbidity, duration of MCS, and other clinical outcomes including in-hospital mortality. In this regard, Routine versus Provisional Distal Perfusion Catheter Placement in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support (PERFUSE-MCS) trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes between routine DPC insertion versus provisional DPC insertion in the occurrence of sign or symptom of acute limb ischemia in patients undergoing MCS through femoral artery approach.