Evidence Hub

A63-07 Atrial Septostomy and Percutaneous Reverse Potts Shunt While on V-A ECMO as Salvage Therapies for Right Ventricular Failure Secondary to Severe Portopulmonary Hypertension: A Case Report

J. Fountain, A. Witkin, A. Wong, A. Schmidt, J. Crowley, J. Rodriguez-Lopez

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2026

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock from right ventricular (RV) failure secondary to severe pulmonary hypertension carries high mortality. Treatment includes pulmonary vasodilators, volume removal, vasopressor and inotropic support, and consideration of mechanical circulatory support, though these therapies may prove inadequate. In patients with suprasystemic pulmonary arterial (PA) pressures despite maximally tolerated pulmonary vasodilators, procedures such as balloon atrial septostomy (BAS) and reverse Potts shunt (connection between the left main PA and descending aorta) have shown benefit, though experiences in adults and critically ill patients are limited.

A 33-year-old male with a history of liver failure requiring liver transplantation at age 6 complicated by portopulmonary hypertension on ambrisentan and tadalafil presented with fatigue and dyspnea. He was found to be in cardiogenic shock secondary to RV failure and was cannulated to venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO). Treatment with ambrisentan, inhaled nitric oxide, and IV epoprostenol was initiated, and Sotatercept 0.7mg/kg was given off-label. Attempts to wean V-A ECMO were complicated by hypotension and rising central venous pressure (CVP) requiring escalating vasopressors and inotropes. The patient was deemed ineligible for lung transplantation at multiple institutions. Given inability to wean from ECMO, BAS was performed. Hypotension persisted with subsequent ECMO weaning trials, however CVP did not…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free