Comparison of a direct vs consultative advanced heart failure role in the outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients

Table 1 Baseline characteristics in a cohort of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients with direct vs consultative primary advanced heart failure and transplant involvement, n (%)

	Total (n = 51)	With direct AHFTC role (n = 21)	With consultative AHFTC role (n = 30)	P value
Age (year)	47.2 (SD 14.5)	47.0 (SD 13.3)	47.4 (SD 15.5)	0.92
RESP score	3.4 (SD 3.3)	3.2 (SD 1.9)	3.5 (SD 4.1)	0.81
SAVE score	-5.7 (SD 3.9)	-4.6 (SD 4.3)	-6.5 (SD 3.5)	0.22
Time on ECMO (days)	11.8 (SD 17.3)	15.6 (SD 21.8)	9.3 (SD 13.3)	0.21
Total days of MV prior to cannulation (days)	3.6 (SD 5.2)	3.0 (SD 3.6)	4.0 (SD 6.0)	0.51
Renal function	2.1 (SD 1.7)	1.9 (SD 1.8)	2.1 (SD 1.7)	0.68
On pressors	44 (86)	15 (71)	29 (97)	0.01
Requiring RRT	23 (45)	5 (24)	18 (60)	0.01
Requiring mechanical ventilation	49 (96)	19 (90)	30(100)	0.09
Requiring tMCS	15 (29)	5 (24)	10 (33)	0.46
With Swan-ganz placement	20 (39)	9 (43)	11 (37)	0.66

AHFTC: Advanced heart failure and transplant; ECMO: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; MV: Mechanical ventilation; RRT: Renal replacement therapy; tMCS: Temporary mechanical circulatory support.