Search

Background: Hyperkalemia (HK) is associated with suboptimal renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Objectives: This study sought to assess characteristics and RAS inhibitor/MRA use in patients receiving patiromer during the DIAMOND (Patiromer for the Management of Hyperkalemia in Subjects Receiving RAASi Medications for the Treatment of Heart Failure) run-in phase., Methods: Patients with HFrEF and HK or past HK entered a run-in phase of ≤12 weeks with patiromer-facilitated RAS inhibitor/MRA optimization to achieve ≥50% recommended RAS inhibitor dose, 50 mg/d MRA, and normokalemia. Patients achieving these criteria (randomized group) were compared with the run-in failure group (patients not meeting the randomization criteria)., Results: Of 1,038 patients completing the run-in, 878 (84.6%) were randomized and 160 (15.4%) were run-in failures. Overall, 422 (40.7%) had HK entering run-in with a similar frequency in the randomized and run-in failure groups (40.3% vs 42.5%; P = 0.605). From start to the end of run-in, in the randomized group, an increase was observed in target RAS inhibitor and MRA use in patients with HK (RAS inhibitor: 76.8% to 98.6%; MRA: 35.9% to 98.6%) and past HK (RAS inhibitor: 60.5% to 98.1%; MRA: 15.6% to 98.7%). Despite not meeting the randomization criteria, an increase after run-in was observed in the run-in failure group in target RAS inhibitor (52.5% to 70.6%) and MRA use (15.0% to 48.1%). This increase was observed in patients with HK (RAS inhibitor: 51.5% to 64.7%; MRA: 19.1% to 39.7%) and past HK (RAS inhibitor: 53.3% to 75.0%; MRA: 12.0% to 54.3%)., Conclusions: In patients with HFrEF and HK or past HK receiving suboptimal RAS inhibitor/MRA therapy, RAS inhibitor/MRA optimization increased during patiromer-facilitated run-in., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Study funding was provided by Vifor (International) AG. Dr Pitt has received consulting fees, payment or honoraria, support for attending meetings and/or travel, and stock or stock option from Vifor. Dr Anker has recevied grants from Abbott Vascular and Vifor; has received ad hoc consultancy/advisory board participation from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bioventrix, Brahms, Cordio, CVRx, Edwards, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Reparion, Sanofi, and Vectorious; has performed trial/registry steering committee work or consulting for Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiac Dimensions, Cardior, Impulse Dynamics, Occlutech, Servier, V-Wave, and Vifor Int; and has received fees for advisory board work from Abbott Vascular. Dr Lund has received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Novartis, and Vifor Pharma; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, MedScope, Merck, Pharmacosmos, Myokardia, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; has received payment or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Medscope, Novartis, and Radcliffe; and has been a board member/fellow of ESC Heart Failure Association (HFA), ESC, and Swedish Society of Cardiology, HF Working Group; and has stock or stock options in AnaCardio. Dr Coats has received consulting fees from Actimed, Cardiac Dimensions, Corvia, CVRx, Enopace, ESN Cleer, Faraday, Impulse Dynamics, and Respicardia; has received payment or honoraria from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Edwards, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Novartis, Servier, Vifor, and Viatris; and has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Impulse Dynamics. Dr Filippatos has been a committee member in trials for the European Commission; has received payment or honoraria from Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Bayer; has a leadership or fiduciary role from European Academy, Heart Failure Association, and JACC Heart Failure; and has received lecture fees, advisory or committee membership in trials from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Impulse Dynamics, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr Rossignol has been a DIAMOND Steering Committee member and has received honoraria from Vifor; has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CinCor, Idorsia, KBP, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Vifor; is cofounder of CardioRenal; has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Bayer, Idorsia, and Sequana medical; and has stock in Cardiorenal and stock options in G3P. Dr Weir has served on the DIAMOND Steering Committee and has received personal fees from CSL Vifor, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Johnson & Johnson, and Care DX. Dr Kosiborod has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer; has served as a consultant/advisory board member for 35Pharma, Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Sanofi, scPharmaceuticals, Structure Therapeutics, Vifor Pharma, and Youngene Therapeutics; has received research support from AstraZeneca; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; has received support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, and Vifor Pharma; and has stock options in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics. Dr Metra has received honoraria for participation on a DIAMOND trial meeting. Dr Böhm has received research support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, SFB-TTR 219, S-01); has received honoraria for speaking from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor; and has particiapted in advisory boards for Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, ReCor, Servier, and Vifor. Dr Ezekowitz has received research support for trial leadership or grants from American Regent, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, and Otsuka; and has received honoraria for consultancy from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Otsuka. Dr Bayes-Genis has lectured and/or participated in boards for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor. Dr Mentz has received honoraria from Vifor; and has received research support and honoraria from AstraZeneca. Dr Ponikowski has received grants or contracts, consulting fees, and payment or honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cibiem, BMS, Impulse Dynamics, Merck, Renal Guard Solution, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr Senni has been a consultant for Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Vifor Pharma, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Bioventrix, Servier, Novo Nordisk, Cardurion, and AnaCardio. Dr Brugts has received an independent research grant from Abbott to the Institute; and has received honoraria for advisory boards or speaker fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Vifor (5-year period). Drs Perrin, Waechter, and Budden have been paid employees and have stock/stock options in CSL Vifor. Dr Butler has received personal consulting fees from Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, Cardior, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Element Science, Innolife, Impulse Dynamics, Imbria, Inventiva, Lexicon, Lilly, LivaNova, Janssen, Medtronics, Merck, Occlutech, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Pharmain, Roche, Sequana, SQ Innovation, 3live, and Vifor; and has received payment from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Janssen, and Novartis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Most post-cardiotomy (PC) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) runs last less than 7 days. Studies on the outcomes of longer runs have provided conflicting results. This study investigates patient characteristics and short- and long-term outcomes in relation to PC ECMO duration, with a focus on prolonged (> 7 d) ECMO., Design: Retrospective observational cohort study., Setting: Thirty-four centers from 16 countries between January 2000 and December 2020., Patients: Adults requiring post PC ECMO between 2000 and 2020., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Characteristics, in-hospital, and post-discharge outcomes were compared among patients categorized by ECMO duration. Survivors and nonsurvivors were compared in the subgroup of patients with ECMO duration greater than 7 days. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Two thousand twenty-one patients were included who required PC ECMO for 0-3 days ( n = 649 [32.1%]), 4-7 days ( n = 776 [38.3%]), 8-10 days ( n = 263 [13.0%]), and greater than 10 days ( n = 333 [16.5%]). There were no major differences in the investigated preoperative and procedural characteristics among ECMO duration groups. However, the longer ECMO duration category was associated with multiple complications including bleeding, acute kidney injury, arrhythmias, and sepsis. Hospital mortality followed a U-shape curve, with lowest mortality in patients with ECMO duration of 4-7 days ( n = 394, 50.8%) and highest in patients with greater than 10 days ECMO support ( n = 242, 72.7%). There was no significant difference in post-discharge survival between ECMO duration groups. In patients with ECMO duration greater than 7 days, age, comorbidities, valvular diseases, and complex procedures were associated with nonsurvival., Conclusions: Nearly 30% of PC ECMO patients were supported for greater than 7 days. In-hospital mortality increased after 7 days of support, especially in patients undergoing valvular and complex surgery, or who had complications, although the long-term post-discharge prognosis was comparable to PC ECMO patients with shorter support duration., Competing Interests: Dr. Wiedemann received funding from Xenios, Fresenius, and Abbott. Dr. Whitman received funding from Avania, LLC. Dr. Miranda received funding from Resuscitec. Dr. Lorusso’s institution received funding from Medtronic, LivaNova, Eurosets, Abiomed, Xenios, Hemocue, ChinaBridge Medical, and Getinge. Dr. MacLaren is the president of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Stroke after durable left ventricular assist device (d-LVAD) implantation portends high mortality. The incidence of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke and the impact on stroke outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) management among patients requiring bridge to d-LVAD with micro-axial flow-pump (mAFP, Abiomed) is unsettled., Methods: Consecutive patients, who underwent d-LVAD implantation after being bridged with mAFP at 19 institutions, were retrospectively included. The incidence of early ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke after d-LVAD implantation (<60 days) and association of pre-d-LVAD characteristics and peri-procedural management with a specific focus on tMCS strategies were studied., Results: Among 341 patients, who underwent d-LVAD implantation after mAFP implantation (male gender 83.6%, age 58 [48-65] years, mAFP 5.0/5.5 72.4%), the early ischemic stroke incidence was 10.8% and early hemorrhagic stroke 2.9%. The tMCS characteristics (type of mAFP device and access, support duration, upgrade from intra-aortic balloon pump, ECMELLA, ECMELLA at d-LVAD implantation, hemolysis, and bleeding) were not associated with ischemic stroke after d-LVAD implant. Conversely, the device model (mAFP 2.5/CP vs. mAFP 5.0/5.5: HR 5.6, 95%CI 1.4-22.7, p = 0.015), hemolysis on mAFP support (HR 10.5, 95% CI 1.3-85.3, p = 0.028) and ECMELLA at d-LVAD implantation (HR 5.0, 95% CI 1.4-18.7, p = 0.016) were associated with increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke after d-LVAD implantation. Both early ischemic (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.9-4.5, p < 0.001) and hemorrhagic (HR 3.43, 95% CI 1.49-7.88, p = 0.004) stroke were associated with increased 1-year mortality., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing d-LVAD implantation following mAFP support, tMCS characteristics do not impact ischemic stroke occurrence, while several factors are associated with hemorrhagic stroke suggesting a proactive treatment target to reduce this complication., (© 2024 International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aims: In a recent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, routine use of veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) did not improve outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), while a microaxial flow pump reduced mortality in a selected group of patients with AMI-CS in the DanGer-Shock trial., Methods and Results: Individual patient data of patients included in four randomized clinical trials investigating the routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS were centrally analysed. For the purpose of this sub-analysis, DanGer-Shock-like patients were analysed (STEMI only, presumed low likelihood of brain injury). The primary endpoint was 180-day all-cause mortality. A total of 202 patients (106 randomized to VA-ECMO and 96 to control) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics, angiographic and interventional features between the two groups. Mortality after 6 months was numerically lower with VA-ECMO between the groups [45% in VA-ECMO group vs. 51% in control group; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.26], while major bleeding (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.08-4.64) and peripheral vascular complications (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.15-11.56) were increased with the use of VA-ECMO., Conclusion: In this exploratory subgroup analysis in patients with CS, STEMI, and a low likelihood of brain injury, there was no mortality benefit with the routine use of VA-ECMO. However, as indicated by the large confidence intervals, the statistical power was limited to draw definite conclusions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In refractory cardiac arrest, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation may increase the survival chance. However, in cases of unsuccessful treatment, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation may additionally provide an important source of organ donors. Therefore, we hypothesized that implementing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation service into a high-volume cardiac arrest center's routine would increases organ donors' availability., Methods: Our retrospective observational study analyzed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients admitted to the General University Hospital in Prague between 2007 and 2020. The following groups were analyzed regarding the recruitment of donors: before and after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation implementation. We assessed the number of donors referred, the number of organs harvested, and the organ's survival., Results: We analyzed the results of 1,158 patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. In the conventional approach period, 11 donors were referred, of which 7 were accepted. During the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation period, the number of donors increased to 80, of whom 42 were accepted. The number of donated organs was 18 and 119 in the respective periods, corresponding to 3.6 vs 13.2 (p = 0.033) harvested organs per year. One-year survival of transplanted organs was 94.4% vs 99.2%, and 5-year survival was 94.4% vs 95.9% in relevant periods. Conventional and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation did not affect donor organ survival., Conclusion: Establishing a high-volume cardiac arrest center providing an extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation service may increase not only the number of prolonged cardiac arrest survivors but also the number of organ donors. In addition, the performances of donated organs were high and comparable between both treatment methods., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest statement The corresponding author (JB) has received lecture honoraria from the Getinge, Abiomed and Resuscitec companies. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS., Methods: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295., Findings: Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57-73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74-1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62-1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75-1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61-0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91-3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37-8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control., Interpretation: The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only., Funding: The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HT is the current president of the German Cardiac Society. JEM reports lecture fees from Abbott and Boehringer Ingelheim; institutional research grants from Abiomed and Novo Nordisk Foundation; travel support from Abiomed; equipment from Abiomed; and served as a data and safety monitoring board member for DanHeart. JB reports speaker fees from Resuscitec and Getinge. DB reports payment for travel expenses from Abiomed; and institutional support for steering committee membership. MF reports grants paid to their institution from the European Commission. HE reports speaker fees from Novartis; and travel expenses from Abbott paid to their institution. PO reports speaker fees from Getinge, Abiomed, Fresenius, Edwards Lifesciences, and AOP; and is the president of the Czech Society of Cardiology. PCS reports lecture fees from Abiomed and Abbott; and institutional research support from Abiomed. JP reports institutional research grants from the German Cardiac Society, Schwiete Foundation, German Heart Research Foundation, and Maquet. CH reports lecture fees from Abiomed. MH reports research support paid to their institution from the Heart Center Leipzig. AP reports lecture fees and institutional research grants from Abiomed. NM reports lecture fees from Abbott, Abiomed, AstraZeneca, B Braun, Biotronik, the British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi Genzyme; grants paid to their institution from Abiomed; and unrestricted educational grants from Abiomed and BSCI. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Critical care of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with acute brain injury (ABI) is notable for a lack of high-quality clinical evidence. Here, we offer guidelines for neurological care (neurological monitoring and management) of adults during and after ECMO support., Methods: These guidelines are based on clinical practice consensus recommendations and scientific statements. We convened an international multidisciplinary consensus panel including 30 clinician-scientists with expertise in ECMO from all chapters of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). We used a modified Delphi process with three rounds of voting and asked panelists to assess the recommendation levels., Results: We identified five key clinical areas needing guidance: (1) neurological monitoring, (2) post-cannulation early physiological targets and ABI, (3) neurological therapy including medical and surgical intervention, (4) neurological prognostication, and (5) neurological follow-up and outcomes. The consensus produced 30 statements and recommendations regarding key clinical areas. We identified several knowledge gaps to shape future research efforts., Conclusions: The impact of ABI on morbidity and mortality in ECMO patients is significant. Particularly, early detection and timely intervention are crucial for improving outcomes. These consensus recommendations and scientific statements serve to guide the neurological monitoring and prevention of ABI, and management strategy of ECMO-associated ABI., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an advanced technique using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to support patients with refractory cardiac arrest. Age significantly influences ECPR outcomes, with younger patients generally experiencing better survival and neurological outcomes due to many aspects. This review explores the impact of age on ECPR effectiveness, emphasizing the need to consider age alongside other clinical factors in patient selection. Survival rates differ notably between in-hospital (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), highlighting the importance of rapid intervention. The potential of artificial intelligence to develop predictive models for ECPR outcomes is discussed, aiming to improve decision-making. Ethical considerations around age-based treatment decisions are also addressed. This review advocates for a balanced approach to ECPR, integrating clinical and ethical perspectives to optimize patient outcomes across all age groups.

Background: We aimed to estimate the effect of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) on neurological outcome and mortality, when compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), using an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA)., Methods: A systematic literature search was performed up to the 20th of October 2022 in the PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. For observational studies with unmatched populations, a propensity score including age, location of arrest and initial rhythm was used to match ECPR and CCPR patients in a 1:1 ratio. The primary and secondary outcomes were unfavorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category of 3-5) and mortality, respectively, which were both collected at different time-points., Results: Data from 17 studies, including 2064 matched cardiac arrest (CA) patients (1031 ECPR and 1033 CCPR cases) were included. In comparison to CCPR, ECPR was associated with a decreased odds of unfavorable neurological outcome (847, 82.2% vs. 897, 86.8% - OR 0.68 [95%CI 0.53-0.87]; p = 0.002) and death (803, 77.9% vs. 860, 83.3% - OR 0.68 [95%CI 0.54-0.86]; p = 0.001). These results were consistent across most of the prespecified subgroups. Moreover, the odds of both unfavorable neurological outcome and mortality were significantly influenced by initial rhythm, cause of arrest and combinations of lactate levels on admission and duration of resuscitation., Conclusions: This IPDMA showed that ECPR was associated with significantly lower rates of unfavorable neurological outcome and mortality in refractory CA. The overall effect could be influenced by CA characteristics and the severity of the initial injury., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ‘A Cariou reported receiving lecture fees from BD; FS Taccone received lecture fees from BD and ZOLL and is scientific advisor for Nihon Khoden, Neuroptics and Eurosets. Other authors reported no potential conflict of interest relevant to this study.’., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in cardiogenic shock patients has increased during the last decades with most management strategies relying on observational studies and expert opinion, including hemodynamic monitoring, device selection and timing of support institution/duration. In this context, imaging has a pivotal role throughout the patient pathway, from identification to initiation, monitoring and weaning. This manuscript summarizes the consensus of an expert panel from the European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute CardioVascular Care, the European Association of CardioVascular Imaging and the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, providing the rationale for and practical guidance of imaging to tMCS based on existing evidence and consensus on best current practice., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cerebral perfusion may change depending on arterial cannulation site and may affect the incidence of neurologic adverse events in post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support (ECLS). The current study compares patients' neurologic outcomes with three commonly used arterial cannulation strategies (aortic vs. subclavian/axillary vs. femoral artery) to evaluate if each ECLS configuration is associated with different rates of neurologic complications., Methods: This retrospective, multicenter (34 centers), observational study included adults requiring post-cardiotomy ECLS between January 2000 and December 2020 present in the Post-Cardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Support (PELS) Study database. Patients with Aortic, Subclavian/Axillary and Femoral cannulation were compared on the incidence of a composite neurological end-point (ischemic stroke, cerebral hemorrhage, brain edema). Secondary outcomes were overall in-hospital mortality, neurologic complications as cause of in-hospital death, and post-operative minor neurologic complications (seizures). Association between cannulation and neurological outcomes were investigated through linear mixed-effects models., Results: This study included 1897 patients comprising 26.5% Aortic (n = 503), 20.9% Subclavian/Axillary (n = 397) and 52.6% Femoral (n = 997) cannulations. The Subclavian/Axillary group featured a more frequent history of hypertension, smoking, diabetes, previous myocardial infarction, dialysis, peripheral artery disease and previous stroke. Neuro-monitoring was used infrequently in all groups. Major neurologic complications were more frequent in Subclavian/Axillary (Aortic: n = 79, 15.8%; Subclavian/Axillary: n = 78, 19.6%; Femoral: n = 118, 11.9%; p < 0.001) also after mixed-effects model adjustment (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.02-2.31], p = 0.041). Seizures were more common in Subclavian/Axillary (n = 13, 3.4%) than Aortic (n = 9, 1.8%) and Femoral cannulation (n = 12, 1.3%, p = 0.036). In-hospital mortality was higher after Aortic cannulation (Aortic: n = 344, 68.4%, Subclavian/Axillary: n = 223, 56.2%, Femoral: n = 587, 58.9%, p < 0.001), as shown by Kaplan-Meier curves. Anyhow, neurologic cause of death (Aortic: n = 12, 3.9%, Subclavian/Axillary: n = 14, 6.6%, Femoral: n = 28, 5.0%, p = 0.433) was similar., Conclusions: In this analysis of the PELS Study, Subclavian/Axillary cannulation was associated with higher rates of major neurologic complications and seizures. In-hospital mortality was higher after Aortic cannulation, despite no significant differences in incidence of neurological cause of death in these patients. These results encourage vigilance for neurologic complications and neuromonitoring use in patients on ECLS, especially with Subclavian/Axillary cannulation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose of Review: This article offers an overview of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in treating cardiogenic shock, including findings from the DanGer shock trial. It summarizes the clinical implications and limitations of these studies and key decision-making considerations for cardiogenic shock device use., Recent Findings: Despite important limitations in all published RCTs, the routine use of VA ECMO for acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock did not demonstrate benefit and should be reserved for selected patients with extreme forms of cardiogenic shock. Conversely, mAFP (Impella CP) appears promising for cardiogenic shock due to ST elevation myocardial infarction. A stepwise approach - initial mAFP use for cardiogenic shock with left ventricular failure, supplemented by VA ECMO if mAFP is inadequate or if severe right ventricular failure is present - may be preferable, but requires validation through RCTs. High complication rates in device arms underscore the need for careful patient selection, preventive strategies, education for centers and operators, and further research., Summary: Recent trials offer insights into mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock, but their real-world applicability is limited. Despite potential benefits, the use of VA ECMO and mAFP is associated with significant complication rates, emphasizing the need for personalized use., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome with different causes and a complex pathophysiology. Recent evidence from clinical trials evokes the urgent need for redefining clinical diagnostic criteria to be compliant with the definition of cardiogenic shock and current diagnostic methods., Recent Findings: Conflicting results from randomized clinical trials investigating mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock have elicited several extremely important questions. At minimum, it is questionable whether survivors of cardiac arrest should be included in trials focused on cardiogenic shock. Moreover, considering the wide availability of ultrasound and hemodynamic monitors capable of arterial pressure analysis, the current clinical diagnostic criteria based on the presence of hypotension and hypoperfusion have become insufficient. As such, new clinical criteria for the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock should include evidence of low cardiac output and appropriate ventricular filling pressure., Summary: Clinical diagnostic criteria for cardiogenic shock should be revised to better define cardiac pump failure as a primary cause of hemodynamic compromise., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Circulatory support with a catheter-based microaxial flow pump (mAFP) plays a major role in the treatment of severe cardiogenic shock. In most patients who fail to recover while on temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) and who are not eligible for heart transplantation, durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) implantation is usually considered a reliable option. This study aimed to describe the outcome of dLVAD therapy following mAFP support and to identify predictors of mortality., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of data from a multicenter registry on patients who underwent dLVAD implantation following tMCS with a mAFP between January 2017 and October 2022 (n = 332) from 19 European centers., Results: Patients were supported with an Impella 5.5 (n = 92), 5.0 (n = 153) or CP (n = 87) and were transitioned to a HeartWare HVAD (n = 128) or Heartmate 3 (n = 204) during the same period. One hundred and twenty-five patients (39.2%) also required extracorporeal life support before and/or during mAFP therapy. The 30-day and 1-year survival were 87.8% and 71.1%, respectively. The following risk factors for 1-year mortality were identified: age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02), specifically age over 55 years (OR, 1.09), body mass index >30 kg/m 2 (OR, 2.2), female sex (OR for male sex, 0.43), elevated total bilirubin (OR, 1.12), and low platelet count (OR, 0.996)., Conclusions: Based on the identified risk factors, a risk score for estimating 1-year mortality was calculated to optimize patient selection for dLVAD implantation., Competing Interests: M.O. is a member of the advisory board for A biomed. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Hemodynamic derangements are defining features of cardiogenic shock. Randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of various therapeutic interventions, from percutaneous coronary intervention to inotropes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, hemodynamic management in cardiogenic shock has not been well-studied. This State-of-the-Art review will provide a framework for hemodynamic management in cardiogenic shock, including a description of the 4 therapeutic phases from initial 'Rescue' to 'Optimization', 'Stabilization' and 'de-Escalation or Exit therapy' (R-O-S-E), phenotyping and phenotype-guided tailoring of pharmacological and MCS support, to achieve hemodynamic and therapeutic goals. Finally, the premises that form the basis for clinical management and the hypotheses for randomized controlled trials will be discussed, with a view to the future direction of cardiogenic shock., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest SL has received honoraria from Abiomed. JGC reports having received fees for educational presentations from Abbott and Orion and consultancies and travel grants from Abbott. JB has received honoraria from Abiomed, Getinge, Resuscitec and Xenios. EZ reports no relevant conflict of interest with respect to the content of this manuscript. VB has reported no conflict of interest. BS has received research support from the German Research Foundation, the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung and Abiomed as well as speaker fees from Abbott, Abiomed and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. TH has received a research grant through the ISHLT funded by Abiomed., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Although cardiogenic shock requiring extracorporeal life support after cardiac surgery is associated with high mortality, the impact of sex on outcomes of postcardiotomy extracorporeal life support remains unclear with conflicting results in the literature. We compare patient characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and overall survival between females and males requiring postcardiotomy extracorporeal life support., Methods: This retrospective, multicenter (34 centers), observational study included adults requiring postcardiotomy extracorporeal life support between 2000 and 2020. Preoperative, procedural, and extracorporeal life support characteristics, complications, and survival were compared between females and males. Association between sex and in-hospital survival was investigated through mixed Cox proportional hazard models., Results: This analysis included 1823 patients (female: 40.8%; median age: 66.0 years [interquartile range, 56.2-73.0 years]). Females underwent more mitral valve surgery (females: 38.4%, males: 33.1%, P = .019) and tricuspid valve surgery (feamales: 18%, males: 12.4%, P < .001), whereas males underwent more coronary artery surgery (females: 45.9%, males: 52.4%, P = .007). Extracorporeal life support implantation was more common intraoperatively in feamales (females: 64.1%, females: 59.1%) and postoperatively in males (females: 35.9%, males: 40.9%, P = .036). Ventricular unloading (females: 25.1%, males: 36.2%, P < .001) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (females: 25.8%, males: 36.8%, P < .001) were most frequently used in males. Females had more postoperative right ventricular failure (females: 24.1%, males: 19.1%, P = .016) and limb ischemia (females: 12.3%, males: 8.8%, P = .23). In-hospital mortality was 64.9% in females and 61.9% in males (P = .199) with no differences in 5-year survival (females: 20%, 95% CI, 17-23; males: 24%, 95% CI, 21-28; P = .069). Crude hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality in females was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.99-1.27; P = .069) and did not change after adjustments., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that female and male patients requiring postcardiotomy extracorporeal life support have different preoperative and extracorporeal life support characteristics, as well as complications, without a statistical difference in in-hospital and 5-year survivals., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement R.L. is a consultant for Medtronic, Getinge, Abiomed, and LivaNova; Advisory Board Member of Eurosets, Hemocue, and Xenios (honoraria as research funding). D.W. is a consultant/proctor for Abbott and a scientific advisor for Xenios. K.R. reports honorarium from Baxter and Fresenius for educational lectures. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomized data evaluating the impact of the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) approach on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are lacking. The objective of this follow-up study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of the ECPR-based versus CCPR approach., Methods: The Prague OHCA trial was a single-center, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with witnessed refractory OHCA of presumed cardiac origin, without return of spontaneous circulation, were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene to conventional CPR (CCPR) or an ECPR-based approach (intra-arrest transport, ECPR if ROSC is not achieved prehospital and immediate invasive assessment)., Results: From March 2013 to October 2020, 264 patients were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene, and 256 patients were enrolled. Long-term follow-up was performed 5.3 (interquartile range 3.8-7.2) years after initial randomization and was completed in 255 of 256 patients (99.6%). In total, 34/123 (27.6%) patients in the ECPR-based group and 26/132 (19.7%) in the CCPR group were alive (log-rank P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the neurological outcome, survival after hospital discharge, risk of hospitalization, major cardiovascular events and quality of life. Of long-term survivors, 1/34 (2.9%) in the ECPR-based arm and 1/26 (3.8%) in the CCPR arm had poor neurological outcome (both patients had a cerebral performance category score of 3)., Conclusions: Among patients with refractory OHCA, the ECPR-based approach significantly improved long-term survival. There were no differences in the neurological outcome, major cardiovascular events and quality of life between the groups, but the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference in these outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666, Registered 19 January 2012., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: International guidelines recommend body temperature control below 37.8 °C in unconscious patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA); however, a target temperature of 33 °C might lead to better outcomes when the initial rhythm is nonshockable., Objective: To assess whether hypothermia at 33 °C increases survival and improves function when compared with controlled normothermia in unconscious adults resuscitated from OHCA with initial nonshockable rhythm., Data Sources: Individual patient data meta-analysis of 2 multicenter, randomized clinical trials (Targeted Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest [TTM2; NCT02908308] and HYPERION [NCT01994772]) with blinded outcome assessors. Unconscious patients with OHCA and an initial nonshockable rhythm were eligible for the final analysis., Study Selection: The study cohorts had similar inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were randomized to hypothermia (target temperature 33 °C) or normothermia (target temperature 36.5 to 37.7 °C), according to different study protocols, for at least 24 hours. Additional analyses of mortality and unfavorable functional outcome were performed according to age, sex, initial rhythm, presence or absence of shock on admission, time to return of spontaneous circulation, lactate levels on admission, and the cardiac arrest hospital prognosis score., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Only patients who experienced OHCA and had a nonshockable rhythm with all causes of cardiac arrest were included. Variables from the 2 studies were available from the original data sets and pooled into a unique database and analyzed. Clinical outcomes were harmonized into a single file, which was checked for accuracy of numbers, distributions, and categories. The last day of follow-up from arrest was recorded for each patient. Adjustment for primary outcome and functional outcome was performed using age, gender, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months; secondary outcomes included unfavorable functional outcome at 3 to 6 months, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of 3 to 5., Results: A total of 912 patients were included, 490 from the TTM2 trial and 422 from the HYPERION trial. Of those, 442 had been assigned to hypothermia (48.4%; mean age, 65.5 years; 287 males [64.9%]) and 470 to normothermia (51.6%; mean age, 65.6 years; 327 males [69.6%]); 571 patients had a first monitored rhythm of asystole (62.6%) and 503 a presumed noncardiac cause of arrest (55.2%). At 3 months, 354 of 442 patients in the hypothermia group (80.1%) and 386 of 470 patients in the normothermia group (82.1%) had died (relative risk [RR] with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.89-1.20; P = .63). On the last day of follow-up, 386 of 429 in the hypothermia group (90.0%) and 413 of 463 in the normothermia group (89.2%) had an unfavorable functional outcome (RR with hypothermia, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.15; P = .97). The association of hypothermia with death and functional outcome was consistent across the prespecified subgroups., Conclusions and Relevance: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, including unconscious survivors from OHCA with an initial nonshockable rhythm, hypothermia at 33 °C did not significantly improve survival or functional outcome.

Background: Physical activity is pivotal in managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and walking integrated into daily life is an especially suitable form of physical activity. This study aimed to determine whether a 6-month lifestyle walking intervention combining self-monitoring and regular telephone counseling improves functional capacity assessed by the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) in patients with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction compared with usual care., Methods: The WATCHFUL trial (Pedometer-Based Walking Intervention in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) was a 6-month multicenter, parallel-group randomized controlled trial recruiting patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 6 cardiovascular centers in the Czech Republic. Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age, had left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, and had New York Heart Association class II or III symptoms on guidelines-recommended medication. Individuals exceeding 450 meters on the baseline 6MWT were excluded. Patients in the intervention group were equipped with a Garmin vívofit activity tracker and received monthly telephone counseling from research nurses who encouraged them to use behavior change techniques such as self-monitoring, goal-setting, and action planning to increase their daily step count. The patients in the control group continued usual care. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the distance walked during the 6MWT at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included daily step count and minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity as measured by the hip-worn Actigraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer, NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein biomarkers, ejection fraction, anthropometric measures, depression score, self-efficacy, quality of life, and survival risk score. The primary analysis was conducted by intention to treat., Results: Of 218 screened patients, 202 were randomized (mean age, 65 years; 22.8% female; 90.6% New York Heart Association class II; median left ventricular ejection fraction, 32.5%; median 6MWT, 385 meters; average 5071 steps/day; average 10.9 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day). At 6 months, no between-group differences were detected in the 6MWT (mean 7.4 meters [95% CI, -8.0 to 22.7]; P =0.345, n=186). The intervention group increased their average daily step count by 1420 (95% CI, 749 to 2091) and daily minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity by 8.2 (95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3) over the control group. No between-group differences were detected for any other secondary outcomes., Conclusions: Whereas the lifestyle intervention in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction improved daily steps by about 25%, it failed to demonstrate a corresponding improvement in functional capacity. Further research is needed to understand the lack of association between increased physical activity and functional outcomes., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03041610., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Belohlavek reports receiving lecture honoraria and participation on advisory boards for Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Linhart reports receiving lecture honoraria and participation on advisory boards for Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Vesely reports receiving lecture honoraria and participation on advisory boards for Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. Dr Svobodova reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca and participation on an advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Pelouch reports receiving lecture honoraria from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The other investigators report no conflicts of interest.

Objectives: Peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with femoral access is obtained through unilateral or bilateral groin cannulation. Whether one cannulation strategy is associated with a lower risk for limb ischemia remains unknown. We aim to assess if one strategy is preferable., Design: A retrospective cohort study based on the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry., Setting: ECMO centers worldwide included in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry., Patients: All adult patients (≥ 18 yr) who received peripheral venoarterial ECMO with femoral access and were included from 2014 to 2020., Interventions: Unilateral or bilateral femoral cannulation., Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was the occurrence of limb ischemia defined as a composite endpoint including the need for a distal perfusion cannula (DPC) after 6 hours from implantation, compartment syndrome/fasciotomy, amputation, revascularization, and thrombectomy. Secondary endpoints included bleeding at the peripheral cannulation site, need for vessel repair, vessel repair after decannulation, and in-hospital death. Propensity score matching was performed to account for confounders. Overall, 19,093 patients underwent peripheral venoarterial ECMO through unilateral ( n = 11,965) or bilateral ( n = 7,128) femoral cannulation. Limb ischemia requiring any intervention was not different between both groups (bilateral vs unilateral: odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.02). However, there was a lower rate of compartment syndrome/fasciotomy in the bilateral group (bilateral vs unilateral: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97). Bilateral cannulation was also associated with lower odds of cannulation site bleeding (bilateral vs unilateral: OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99), vessel repair (bilateral vs unilateral: OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38-0.79), and in-hospital mortality (bilateral vs unilateral: OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91) compared with unilateral cannulation. These findings were unchanged after propensity matching., Conclusions: This study showed no risk reduction for overall limb ischemia-related events requiring DPC after 6 hours when comparing bilateral to unilateral femoral cannulation in peripheral venoarterial ECMO. However, bilateral cannulation was associated with a reduced risk for compartment syndrome/fasciotomy, lower rates of bleeding and vessel repair during ECMO, and lower in-hospital mortality., Competing Interests: Drs. Brodie’s and Lorusso’s institutions received funding from LivaNova. Drs. Brodie, Broman, and Wiedemann received funding from Xenios AG (Heilbronn, Germany). Dr. Brodie received funding from Abided, Medtronic, Abiomed, Inspira, Xenios, and Cellenkos; he received research support from ALung Technologies; and he disclosed that he is President-elect of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) and Chair of the Executive Committee of the International Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Network. Dr. Taccone is a scientific advisor for Eurosets and Xenios. Drs. Belliato and Broman received funding from Eurosets srl (Medolla, Italy). Dr. Belliato received funding from Eswtor Spa and Hamilton Medical. Dr. Wiedemann received funding from Abbott; he is a scientific advisor for Xenios/Fresenius. Dr. Tonna’s institution received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; he disclosed that he is Chair-Elect of the ELSO Registry Committee. Drs. Tonna and Barbaro received support for article research from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Dr. Barbaro’s institution received funding from the NHBLI (R01 HL153519, R01 HD015434, and K12 HL138039); he disclosed that he is the ELSO Registry Chair. Dr. MacLaren disclosed that he serves on the Board of Directors of ELSO. Dr. Lorusso’s institution received funding from Medtronic, LivaNova, Abiomed, Getinge, and Eurosets; he disclosed that he is a member of the Medical Advisory Board for Eurosets, HemoCue, and Xenios. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Monitoring of the patient supported with a temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is crucial in achieving the best possible outcome. Monitoring is a continuous and labour-intensive process, as cardiogenic shock (CS) patients can rapidly deteriorate and may require new interventions within a short time period. Echocardiography and invasive haemodynamic monitoring form the cornerstone of successful tMCS support. During monitoring, it is particularly important to ensure that adequate end-organ perfusion is achieved and maintained. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of best practices for monitoring the CS patient supported by a micro-axial flow pump, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and both devices simultaneously (ECMELLA approach). It is a complex process that encompasses device control, haemodynamic control and stabilization, monitoring of interventions, and assessment of end-organ function. The combined, continuous, and preferably protocol-based approach of echocardiography, evaluation of biomarkers, end-organ assessment, and haemodynamic parameters is crucial in assessing this critically ill CS patient population., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: C.V. received manuscript support from Abiomed, honoraria from Abiomed, and travel support from Abiomed. C.V. is supported by a research grant of the FWO-flanders (FKM 1803923N). J.B. is on a board for AstraZeneca and BoehringerIngelheim and received consulting fees from Abiomed, Getinge, Resuscitec, and Xenios. C.H. has received research grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Lundbeck Foundation, and Danish Heart Foundation and honoraria from Abiomed and is in an unpaid leadership role as Chair of the Danish Heart Foundation and board member of ESC. M.P. has received manuscript preparation support, consulting fees, and honoraria from Abiomed. A.P. has received manuscript preparation support from Abiomed, a research grant from the German Research Council, and honoraria from Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Daiichi, and Medtronic. M.S. reports no disclosures or conflicts of interest. J.E.M. has received grants from Abiomed and Novo Nordic, honoraria from Abiomed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, and Orion, and travel support from Abiomed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Objectives: Postcardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be initiated intraoperatively or postoperatively based on indications, settings, patient profile, and conditions. The topic of implantation timing only recently gained attention from the clinical community. We compare patient characteristics as well as in-hospital and long-term survival between intraoperative and postoperative ECMO., Methods: The retrospective, multicenter, observational Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Support (PELS-1) study includes adults who required ECMO due to postcardiotomy shock between 2000 and 2020. We compared patients who received ECMO in the operating theater (intraoperative) with those in the intensive care unit (postoperative) on in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes., Results: We studied 2003 patients (women: 41.1%; median age: 65 years; interquartile range [IQR], 55.0-72.0). Intraoperative ECMO patients (n = 1287) compared with postoperative ECMO patients (n = 716) had worse preoperative risk profiles. Cardiogenic shock (45.3%), right ventricular failure (15.9%), and cardiac arrest (14.3%) were the main indications for postoperative ECMO initiation, with cannulation occurring after (median) 1 day (IQR, 1-3 days). Compared with intraoperative application, patients who received postoperative ECMO showed more complications, cardiac reoperations (intraoperative: 19.7%; postoperative: 24.8%, P = .011), percutaneous coronary interventions (intraoperative: 1.8%; postoperative: 3.6%, P = .026), and had greater in-hospital mortality (intraoperative: 57.5%; postoperative: 64.5%, P = .002). Among hospital survivors, ECMO duration was shorter after intraoperative ECMO (median, 104; IQR, 67.8-164.2 hours) compared with postoperative ECMO (median, 139.7; IQR, 95.8-192 hours, P < .001), whereas postdischarge long-term survival was similar between the 2 groups (P = .86)., Conclusions: Intraoperative and postoperative ECMO implantations are associated with different patient characteristics and outcomes, with greater complications and in-hospital mortality after postoperative ECMO. Strategies to identify the optimal location and timing of postcardiotomy ECMO in relation to specific patient characteristics are warranted to optimize in-hospital outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Acute onset supraventricular arrhythmias can contribute to haemodynamic compromise in septic shock. Both amiodarone and propafenone are available interventions, but their clinical effects have not yet been directly compared., Methods: In this two-centre, prospective controlled parallel group double blind trial we recruited 209 septic shock patients with new-onset arrhythmia and a left ventricular ejection fraction above 35%. The patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either intravenous propafenone (70 mg bolus followed by 400-840 mg/24 h) or amiodarone (300 mg bolus followed by 600-1800 mg/24 h). The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had sinus rhythm 24 h after the start of the infusion, time to restoration of the first sinus rhythm and the proportion of patients with arrhythmia recurrence., Results: Out of 209 randomized patients, 200 (96%) received the study drug. After 24 h, 77 (72.8%) and 71 (67.3%) were in sinus rhythm (p = 0.4), restored after a median of 3.7 h (95% CI 2.3-6.8) and 7.3 h (95% CI 5-11), p = 0.02, with propafenone and amiodarone, respectively. The arrhythmia recurred in 54 (52%) patients treated with propafenone and in 80 (76%) with amiodarone, p  < 0.001. Patients with a dilated left atrium had better rhythm control with amiodarone (6.4 h (95% CI 3.5; 14.1) until cardioversion vs 18 h (95% CI 2.8; 24.7) in propafenone, p = 0.05)., Conclusion: Propafenone does not provide better rhythm control at 24 h yet offers faster cardioversion with fewer arrhythmia recurrences than with amiodarone, especially in patients with a non-dilated left atrium. No differences between propafenone and amiodarone on the prespecified short- and long-term outcomes were observed., (© 2023. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Failure to restore spontaneous circulation remains a major cause of death for cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Mechanical circulatory support, specifically extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), has emerged as a feasible and efficacious rescue strategy for selected refractory CA patients., Methods: Mechanical Circulatory Support was one of six focus topics for the Wolf Creek XVII Conference held on June 14-17, 2023 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Conference invitees included international thought leaders and scientists in the field of CA resuscitation from academia and industry. Participants submitted via online survey knowledge gaps, barriers to translation and research priorities for each focus topic. Expert panels used the survey results and their own perspectives and insights to create and present a preliminary unranked list for each category that was debated, revised and ranked by all attendees to identify the top 5 for each category., Results: Top 5 knowledge gaps included optimal patient selection, pre-ECPR treatments, logistical and programmatic characteristics of ECPR programs, generalizability and effectiveness of ECPR, and prevention of reperfusion injury. Top 5 barriers to translation included cost/resource limitations, technical challenges, collaboration across multiple disciplines, limited patient population, and early identification of eligible patients. Top 5 research priorities focused on comparing the outcomes of prehospital/rapid transport strategies vs in-hospital ECPR initiation, implementation of high-performing ECPR system vs standard care, rapid patient identification tools vs standard clinical judgment, post-cardiac arrest bundled care vs no bundled care, and standardized ECPR clinical protocol vs routine care., Conclusion: This overview can serve as an innovative guide to transform the care and outcome of patients with refractory CA., Competing Interests: Cindy H. Hsu was the lead investigator of the EROCA trial and Editorial Board Member of Resuscitation Plus. Jason A. Bartos and Demetris Yannopoulos were the lead investigators of the ARREST trial. Jan Belohlavek was the lead investigator of the Prague OHCA study. George Trummer was the lead investigator for the Controlled Automated Reperfusion of the whoLe body (CARL). None of the authors have any financial conflicts of interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) is characterized by discrepancies between weaning and survival-to-discharge rates. This study analyzes the differences between postcardiotomy VA ECMO patients who survived, died on ECMO, or died after ECMO weaning. Causes of death and variables associated with mortality at different time points are investigated., Methods: The retrospective, multicenter, observational Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Support Study (PELS) includes adults requiring postcardiotomy VA ECMO between 2000 and 2020. Variables associated with on-ECMO mortality and postweaning mortality were modeled using mixed Cox proportional hazards, including random effects for center and year., Results: In 2058 patients (men, 59%; median age, 65 years; interquartile range [IQR], 55-72 years), weaning rate was 62.7%, and survival to discharge was 39.6%. Patients who died (n = 1244) included 754 on-ECMO deaths (36.6%; median support time, 79 hours; IQR, 24-192 hours), and 476 postweaning deaths (23.1%; median support time, 146 hours; IQR, 96-235.5 hours). Multiorgan (n = 431 of 1158 [37.2%]) and persistent heart failure (n = 423 of 1158 [36.5%]) were the main causes of death, followed by bleeding (n = 56 of 754 [7.4%]) for on-ECMO mortality and sepsis (n = 61 of 401 [15.4%]) for postweaning mortality. On-ECMO death was associated with emergency surgery, preoperative cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, right ventricular failure, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and ECMO implantation timing. Diabetes, postoperative bleeding, cardiac arrest, bowel ischemia, acute kidney injury, and septic shock were associated with postweaning mortality., Conclusions: A discrepancy exists between weaning and discharge rate in postcardiotomy ECMO. Deaths occurred during ECMO support in 36.6% of patients, mostly associated with unstable preoperative hemodynamics. Another 23.1% of patients died after weaning in association with severe complications. This underscores the importance of postweaning care for postcardiotomy VA ECMO patients., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The Targeted Hypothermia vs Targeted Normothermia After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial reported no difference in mortality or poor functional outcome at 6 months after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This predefined exploratory analysis provides more detailed estimation of brain dysfunction for the comparison of the 2 intervention regimens., Objectives: To investigate the effects of targeted hypothermia vs targeted normothermia on functional outcome with focus on societal participation and cognitive function in survivors 6 months after OHCA., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a predefined analysis of an international multicenter, randomized clinical trial that took place from November 2017 to January 2020 and included participants at 61 hospitals in 14 countries. A structured follow-up for survivors performed at 6 months was by masked outcome assessors. The last follow-up took place in October 2020. Participants included 1861 adult (older than 18 years) patients with OHCA who were comatose at hospital admission. At 6 months, 939 of 1861 were alive and invited to a follow-up, of which 103 of 939 declined or were missing., Interventions: Randomization 1:1 to temperature control with targeted hypothermia at 33 °C or targeted normothermia and early treatment of fever (37.8 °C or higher)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Functional outcome focusing on societal participation assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended ([GOSE] 1 to 8) and cognitive function assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment ([MoCA] 0 to 30) and the Symbol Digit Modalities Test ([SDMT] z scores). Higher scores represent better outcomes., Results: At 6 months, 836 of 939 survivors with a mean age of 60 (SD, 13) (range, 18 to 88) years (700 of 836 male [84%]) participated in the follow-up. There were no differences between the 2 intervention groups in functional outcome focusing on societal participation (GOSE score, odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.17; P = .46) or in cognitive function by MoCA (mean difference, 0.36; 95% CI,-0.33 to 1.05; P = .37) and SDMT (mean difference, 0.06; 95% CI,-0.16 to 0.27; P = .62). Limitations in societal participation (GOSE score less than 7) were common regardless of intervention (hypothermia, 178 of 415 [43%]; normothermia, 168 of 419 [40%]). Cognitive impairment was identified in 353 of 599 survivors (59%)., Conclusions: In this predefined analysis of comatose patients after OHCA, hypothermia did not lead to better functional outcome assessed with a focus on societal participation and cognitive function than management with normothermia. At 6 months, many survivors had not regained their pre-arrest activities and roles, and mild cognitive dysfunction was common., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908308.

Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia (NOMI) is a severe complication in patients after cardiac arrest (CA). The diagnosis is complicated, the treatment options are limited. Given the susceptibility of enterocytes to ischemia, the incidence and severity of NOMI in the post-resuscitation period may reflect the intensity and duration of both ischemia and subsequent reperfusion injury. NOMI is considered to be associated with adverse neurological outcomes in CA patients. Therefore, NOMI should not only be regarded as a post-resuscitation complication but also as one of the prognostic markers in CA patients.This paper summarizes current knowledge on NOMI's pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prognostic significance in CA patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2023 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

Background: Neurological damage remains the leading cause of death in cardiac arrest victims with early neuroprognostication being the cornerstone of the decision-making process to continue or discontinue advanced treatments. In this study, we aimed to find markers of favorable and unfavorable outcome on early brain computed tomography (CT) in patients after prolonged out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treated both by conventional and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR)., Methods: In a secondary analysis of the Prague OHCA study, patients who underwent brain CT within 36 hours after cardiac arrest were identified. Qualitative findings (brain edema, hemorrhage) and quantitative measurements [attenuation of grey matter structures and grey-to-white matter attenuation ratio (GWR)] between patients with cerebral performance category (CPC) of 1-2 (favorable outcome) and 3-5 (unfavorable outcome) within 180 days after the event were compared., Results: In 45 eligible patients, intracranial edema (n=16, 50%) was present in patients with CPC 3-5 only (n=32, 71%). Attenuation of brain structures and GWR did not differ between patients with favorable and unfavorable outcomes. However, the GWR in the caudate and putamen of most CPC 1-2 patients was within a narrow range of values (1.18 to 1.30 and 1.20 to 1.33) that separated patients with CPC 1-2 from CPC 3-5 with a sensitivity of 78% and 66% a specificity of 85% and 100%, and area under the curve （AUC） of 0.86 (P=0.0001) and 0.77 (P=0.0053), respectively. Patients treated by ECPR had lower attenuation in the centrum semiovale (28.3±2.7) compared to those who were not (31.0±2.8, P=0.003). The most common causes of death in CPC 3-5 patients were brain death in 13 (41%) patients, multiorgan failure in 12 (38%), and cardiac rearrest in 4 (13%)., Conclusions: Both decreased and increased grey-to-white matter differentiation in the putamen and caudate on early non-contrast brain CT after prolonged OHCA indicate poor neurological outcome within 180 days after cardiac arrest., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-23-430/coif). LL serves as an unpaid editorial team member of Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. LL and AB report grant support declared in the funding statement—the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (MH CZ-DRO, General University Hospital in Prague-VFN, 00064165) and Charles University (Cooperatio, Medical Diagnostics and Basic Medical Sciences). The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (r-OHCA) in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with poor outcomes. The role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in this patient group is uncertain. This study aims to analyse clinical course, outcomes, and the effect of an invasive procedure, including ECPR, in a randomized population., Methods and Results: A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (Prague OHCA study) was conducted to evaluate the effect of ECPR vs. a standard approach in r-OHCA. A subgroup of patients with PE-related r-OHCA was identified, and procedural and outcome characteristics, including favourable neurological survival, organ donation, and complications, were compared to patients without PE. Pulmonary embolism was identified as a cause of r-OHCA in 24 of 256 (9.4%) enrolled patients. Patients with PE were more likely to be women [12/24 (50%) vs. 32/232 (13.8%); P < 0.001] and presented more frequently with an initial non-shockable rhythm [23/24 (95.8%) vs. 77/232 (33.2%); P < 0.001], as well as more severe acidosis at admission [median pH (interquartile range); 6.83 (6.75-6.88) vs. 6.98 (6.82-7.14); P < 0.001]. Their favourable 180-day neurological survival was significantly lower [2/24 (8.3%) vs. 66/232 (28.4%); P = 0.049], but the proportion of accepted organ donors was higher (16.7 vs. 4.7%, P = 0.04)., Conclusion: Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to PE has a different presentation and inferior outcomes compared to other causes but may represent an important source of organ donations. The ECPR method did not improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Dr. Belohlavek reported receiving lecture honoraria from Maquet Company. No other authors reported disclosures., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are increasingly being used because of improved experience and availability. The Impella (Abiomed), a percutaneous microaxial, continuous-flow, short-term ventricular assist device, requires meticulous postimplantation management to avoid the 2 most frequent complications, namely, bleeding and hemolysis. A standardized approach to the prevention, detection, and treatment of these complications is mandatory to improve outcomes. The risk for hemolysis is mostly influenced by pump instability, resulting from patient- or device-related factors. Upfront echocardiographic assessment, frequent monitoring, and prompt intervention are essential. The precarious hemostatic balance during pVAD support results from the combination of a procoagulant state, due to critical illness and contact pathway activation, together with a variety of factors aggravating bleeding risk. Preventive strategies and appropriate management, adapted to the impact of the bleeding, are crucial. This review offers a guide to physicians to tackle these device-related complications in this critically ill pVAD-supported patient population., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Vandenbriele, Baldetti, Chieffo, Dauwe, Meyns, Panoulas, Pappalardo, Rosenberg, Scandroglio, Schaubroeck, Schrage, Stone, Vlasselaers, and Westermann have received research and/or travel funding and speaker fees from Abiomed outside this work. Drs Vandenbriele and Dauwe are supported by a grant from University Hospitals Leuven (Klinische Onderzoeks-en Opleidingsraad). Dr Beneduce has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Chieffo has received consultant and speaker fees from Biosensor, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Menarini, and Shockwave Medical. Dr Gorog has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca; and has received institutional research grants from Bayer, Medtronic, AstraZeneca, Werfen and Alpha MD. Dr Huber has received honoraria for consulting and lecturing from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr Pöss has received research funding from the German Cardiac Society, the German Foundation of Heart Research, and the Dr Rolf M. Schwiete Foundation. Dr Schrage has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, and Abbott; has served as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma; and has equity or options in Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter. Dr Stone’s daughter is an employee of IQVIA. Dr Stone’s employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, has received research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems, Philips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-Wave. Dr Vranckx has received personal fees from Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, CLS Behring, Pfizer–Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been increasingly used for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, but without a concomitant reduction in observed in-hospital mortality. Long-term outcomes are unknown. This study describes patients' characteristics, in-hospital outcome, and 10-year survival after postcardiotomy ECMO. Variables associated with in-hospital and postdischarge mortality are investigated and reported. Methods and Results The retrospective international multicenter observational PELS-1 (Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Support) study includes data on adults requiring ECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock between 2000 and 2020 from 34 centers. Variables associated with mortality were estimated preoperatively, intraoperatively, during ECMO, and after the occurrence of any complications, and then analyzed at different time points during a patient's clinical course, through mixed Cox proportional hazards models containing fixed and random effects. Follow-up was established by institutional chart review or contacting patients. This analysis included 2058 patients (59% were men; median [interquartile range] age, 65.0 [55.0-72.0] years). In-hospital mortality was 60.5%. Independent variables associated with in-hospital mortality were age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.02]) and preoperative cardiac arrest (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.15-1.73]). In the subgroup of hospital survivors, the overall 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 89.5% (95% CI, 87.0%-92.0%), 85.4% (95% CI, 82.5%-88.3%), 76.4% (95% CI, 72.5%-80.5%), and 65.9% (95% CI, 60.3%-72.0%), respectively. Variables associated with postdischarge mortality included older age, atrial fibrillation, emergency surgery, type of surgery, postoperative acute kidney injury, and postoperative septic shock. Conclusions In adults, in-hospital mortality after postcardiotomy ECMO remains high; however, two-thirds of those who are discharged from hospital survive up to 10 years. Patient selection, intraoperative decisions, and ECMO management remain key variables associated with survival in this cohort. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03857217.

Aim: Animal models of Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) focusing on neurological outcomes are required to further the development of this potentially life-saving technology. The aim of this review is to summarize current animal models of ECPR., Methods: A comprehensive database search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science was undertaken. Full-text publications describing animal models of ECPR between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2022, were identified and included in the review. Data describing the conduct of the animal models of ECPR, measured variables, and outcomes were extracted according to pre-defined definitions., Results: The search strategy yielded 805 unique reports of which 37 studies were included in the final analysis. Most studies (95%) described using a pig model of ECPR with the remainder (5%) describing a rat model. The most common method for induction of cardiac arrest was a fatal ventricular arrhythmia through electrical stimulation (70%). 10 studies reported neurological assessment of animals using physical examination, serum biomarkers, or electrophysiological findings, however, only two studies described a multimodal assessment. No studies reported the use of brain imaging as part of the neurological assessment. Return of spontaneous circulation was the most reported primary outcome, and no studies described the neurological status of the animal as the primary outcome., Conclusion: Current animal models of ECPR do not describe clinically relevant neurological outcomes after cardiac arrest. Further work is needed to develop models that more accurately mimic clinical scenarios and can test innovations that can be translated to the application of ECPR in clinical medicine., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Obesity is an important health problem in cardiac surgery and among patients requiring postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO). Still, whether these patients are at risk for unfavorable outcomes after postcardiotomy V-A ECMO remains unclear. The current study evaluated the association between body mass index (BMI) and in-hospital outcomes in this setting., Methods: The Post-cardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Support (PELS-1) study is an international, multicenter study. Patients requiring postcardiotomy V-A ECMO in 36 centers from 16 countries between 2000 and 2020 were included. Patients were divided in 6 BMI categories (underweight, normal weight, overweight, class I, class II, and class III obesity) according to international recommendations. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included major adverse events. Mixed logistic regression models were applied to evaluate associations between BMI and mortality., Results: The study cohort included 2046 patients (median age, 65 years; 838 women [41.0%]). In-hospital mortality was 60.3%, without statistically significant differences among BMI classes for in-hospital mortality (P = .225) or major adverse events (P = .126). The crude association between BMI and in-hospital mortality was not statistically significant after adjustment for comorbidities and intraoperative variables (class I: odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 0.88-1.65; class II: OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.86-2.45; class III: OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.62-3.33), which was confirmed in multiple sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: BMI is not associated to in-hospital outcomes after adjustment for confounders in patients undergoing postcardiotomy V-A ECMO. Therefore, BMI itself should not be incorporated in the risk stratification for postcardiotomy V-A ECMO., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treated with standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) has poor outcomes. Transport to hospital followed by in-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) initiation may improve outcomes. We performed a pooled individual patient data analysis of two randomised controlled trials evaluating ECPR based approach in OHCA., Methods: The individual patient data from two published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled: ARREST (enrolled Aug 2019-June 2020; NCT03880565) and PRAGUE-OHCA (enrolled March 1, 2013-Oct 25, 2020; NCT01511666). Both trials enrolled patients with refractory OHCA and compared: intra-arrest transport with in-hospital ECPR initiation (invasive approach) versus continued standard ACLS. The primary outcome was 180-day survival with favourable neurological outcome (defined as Cerebral Performance Category 1-2). Secondary outcomes included: cumulative survival at 180 days, 30-day favourable neurological survival, and 30-day cardiac recovery. Risk of bias in each trial was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Heterogeneity was assessed via Forest plots., Findings: The two RCTs included 286 patients. Of those randomised to the invasive (n = 147) and standard (n = 139) groups, respectively: the median age was 57 (IQR 47-65) and 58 years (IQR 48-66), and the median duration of resuscitation was 58 (IQR 43-69) and 49 (IQR 33-71) minutes (p = 0.17). In a modified intention to treat analysis, 45 (32.4%) in the invasive and 29 (19.7%) patients in the standard arm survived to 180 days with a favourable neurological outcome [absolute difference (AD), 95% CI: 12.7%, 2.6-22.7%, p = 0.015]. Forty-seven (33.8%) and 33 (22.4%) patients survived to 180 days [HR 0.59 (0.43-0.81); log rank test p = 0.0009]. At 30 days, 44 (31.7%) and 24 (16.3%) patients had favourable neurological outcome (AD 15.4%, 5.6-25.1%, p = 0.003), 60 (43.2%), and 46 (31.3%) patients had cardiac recovery (AD: 11.9%, 0.7-23%, p = 0.05), in the invasive and standard arms, respectively. The effect was larger in patients presenting with shockable rhythms (AD 18.8%, 7.6-29.4; p = 0.01; HR 2.26 [1.23-4.15]; p = 0.009) and prolonged CPR (>45 min; HR 3.99 (1.54-10.35); p = 0.005)., Interpretation: In patients with refractory OHCA, the invasive approach significantly improved 30- and 180-day neurologically favourable survival., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Jan Belohlavek has received research grant from the Internal Grant Agency Ministry of Health, Czech Republic (NT 13225-4/2012) for the PRAGUE OHCA study and is supported by Charles University Research program “Cooperatio – Intensive Care Medicine” and by a research grant from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic – conceptual development of research organisation, General University Hospital in Prague, MH CZ-DRO-VFN64165. JB also served as a consultant to Abiomed, Getinge, Xenios, and Resuscitec companies. Demetris Yannopoulos has no financial conflicts of interest. Has received NIH funding for the ARREST trial and research in the field of resuscitation. Further has received a grants from Helmsley Charitable Foundation to implement ECPR in the state of MN and deliver 8500 AEDs to first responders. Jason Bartos has no financial conflicts of interest. Has received NIH funding for research in the field of resuscitation. Has received grant funding from the Helmsley Charitable Foundation to implement ECPR in the state of MN and a second grant to distribute AEDs to first responders. Has unpaid positions on the American Heart Association Emergency Care Committee, Science Subcommittee. Served as the President of the Minnesota Mobile Resuscitation Consortium. Fabio Silvio Taccone is a scientific advisor for EUROSETS. Tom P. Aufderheide has no financial conflicts of interest. Has received NIH funding for the ARREST trial and research in the field of resuscitation. He is a consultant for Medtronic, Inc., and has ongoing clinical trials with Cytovale, Inflammatix, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, and ZOLL Medical Corp. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Adverse neurological events during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are common and may be associated with devastating consequences. Close monitoring, early identification and prompt intervention can mitigate early and late neurological morbidity. Neuromonitoring and neurocognitive/neurodevelopmental follow-up are critically important to optimize outcomes in both adults and children., Objective: To assess current practice of neuromonitoring during ECMO and neurocognitive/neurodevelopmental follow-up after ECMO across Europe and to inform the development of neuromonitoring and follow-up guidelines., Methods: The EuroELSO Neurological Monitoring and Outcome Working Group conducted an electronic, web-based, multi-institutional, multinational survey in Europe., Results: Of the 211 European ECMO centres (including non-ELSO centres) identified and approached in 23 countries, 133 (63%) responded. Of these, 43% reported routine neuromonitoring during ECMO for all patients, 35% indicated selective use, and 22% practiced bedside clinical examination alone. The reported neuromonitoring modalities were NIRS ( n = 88, 66.2%), electroencephalography ( n = 52, 39.1%), transcranial Doppler ( n = 38, 28.5%) and brain injury biomarkers ( n = 33, 24.8%). Paediatric centres (67%) reported using cranial ultrasound, though the frequency of monitoring varied widely. Before hospital discharge following ECMO, 50 (37.6%) reported routine neurological assessment and 22 (16.5%) routinely performed neuroimaging with more paediatric centres offering neurological assessment (65%) as compared to adult centres (20%). Only 15 (11.2%) had a structured longitudinal follow-up pathway (defined followup at regular intervals), while 99 (74.4%) had no follow-up programme. The majority ( n = 96, 72.2%) agreed that there should be a longitudinal structured follow-up for ECMO survivors., Conclusions: This survey demonstrated significant variability in the use of different neuromonitoring modalities during and after ECMO. The perceived importance of neuromonitoring and follow-up was noted to be very high with agreement for a longitudinal structured follow-up programme, particularly in paediatric patients. Scientific society endorsed guidelines and minimum standards should be developed to inform local protocols.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used in patients with COVID-19, but uncertainty remains about the determinants of in-hospital mortality and data on post-discharge outcomes are scarce. The aims of this study were to investigate the variables associated with in-hospital outcomes in patients who received ECMO during the first wave of COVID-19 and to describe the status of patients 6 months after ECMO initiation., Methods: EuroECMO-COVID is a prospective, multicentre, observational study developed by the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. This study was based on data from patients aged 16 years or older who received ECMO support for refractory COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic-from March 1 to Sept 13, 2020-at 133 centres in 21 countries. In-hospital mortality and mortality 6 months after ECMO initiation were the primary outcomes. Mixed-Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate associations between patient and management-related variables (eg, patient demographics, comorbidities, pre-ECMO status, and ECMO characteristics and complications) and in-hospital deaths. Survival status at 6 months was established through patient contact or institutional charts review. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04366921, and is ongoing., Findings: Between March 1 and Sept 13, 2020, 1215 patients (942 [78%] men and 267 [22%] women; median age 53 years [IQR 46-60]) were included in the study. Median ECMO duration was 15 days (IQR 8-27). 602 (50%) of 1215 patients died in hospital, and 852 (74%) patients had at least one complication. Multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death (192 [36%] of 528 patients who died with available data). In mixed-Cox analyses, age of 60 years or older, use of inotropes and vasopressors before ECMO initiation, chronic renal failure, and time from intubation to ECMO initiation of 4 days or more were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. 613 patients did not die in hospital, and 547 (95%) of 577 patients for whom data were available were alive at 6 months. 102 (24%) of 431 patients had returned to full-time work at 6 months, and 57 (13%) of 428 patients had returned to part-time work. At 6 months, respiratory rehabilitation was required in 88 (17%) of 522 patients with available data, and the most common residual symptoms included dyspnoea (185 [35%] of 523 patients) and cardiac (52 [10%] of 514 patients) or neurocognitive (66 [13%] of 512 patients) symptoms., Interpretation: Patient's age, timing of cannulation (<4 days vs ≥4 days from intubation), and use of inotropes and vasopressors are essential factors to consider when analysing the outcomes of patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19. Despite post-discharge survival being favourable, persisting long-term symptoms suggest that dedicated post-ECMO follow-up programmes are required., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RL and JBe are past chairmen of the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Steering Committee. NB is the current chairman of the European ELSO Steering Committee. MVA, NB, JBe, MB, MDM, TM, JR, and JS are European ELSO Steering Committee members. RL reports personal fees from Abiomed and Xenios and honoraria payed institution from Medtronic, LivaNova, Getinge and Eurosets, unrelated to the submitted works. FST is advisory member for Eurosets unrelated to the submitted work. DW is proctor for Abbott and scientific advisor for Fresenius. NB is advisory board for ALung. JR reports lecture and advisory fees from Medtronic and Werfen outside the submitted work. PS reports advisory fees from Getinge but not related to the submitted work. AV received consultant fees from Inspira Technologies. MB is an advisory member for Eurosets, congress speaker for Hamilton Medical, and course speaker for Estor, all unrelated to the submitted work. LMB is advisory board for Eurosets and Xenios and is board member of EuroELSO Enterprise, unrelated to the present work. JBe reports consultancy and lecture fees from Abiomed and Getinge and is advisory board member of AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. SL is advisory member of Inspira Technologies, unrelated to the present work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To investigate the impact of patiromer on the serum potassium level and its ability to enable specified target doses of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) use in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: A total of 1642 patients with HFrEF and current or a history of RAASi-related hyperkalemia were screened and 1195 were enrolled in the run-in phase with patiromer and optimization of the RAASi therapy [≥50% recommended dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, and 50 mg of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) spironolactone or eplerenone]. Specified target doses of the RAASi therapy were achieved in 878 (84.6%) patients; 439 were randomized to patiromer and 439 to placebo. All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was between-group difference in the adjusted mean change in serum potassium. Five hierarchical secondary endpoints were assessed. At the end of treatment, the median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 27 (13-43) weeks, the adjusted mean change in potassium was +0.03 mmol/l in the patiromer group and +0.13 mmol/l in the placebo group [difference in the adjusted mean change between patiromer and placebo: -0.10 mmol/l (95% confidence interval, CI -0.13, 0.07); P < 0.001]. Risk of hyperkalemia >5.5 mmol/l [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), reduction of MRA dose (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.87; P = 0.006), and total adjusted hyperkalemia events/100 person-years (77.7 vs. 118.2; HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53, 0.81; P < 0.001) were lower with patiromer. Hyperkalemia-related morbidity-adjusted events (win ratio 1.53, P < 0.001) and total RAASi use score (win ratio 1.25, P = 0.048) favored the patiromer arm. Adverse events were similar between groups., Conclusion: Concurrent use of patiromer and high-dose MRAs reduces the risk of recurrent hyperkalemia (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03888066)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. T.F. reported consulting fees from Vifor Pharma, Bayer, Biosense Webster, CSL Behring, Galapagos, Minoryx, Novartis, LivaNova, Janssen, Roche, and honoraria from Fresenius Kabi. J.B. reported consulting fees from Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, G3 Pharma, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sequana Medical, and Vifor Pharma. G.F. reported honoraria from Bayer and Boehringer Ingelheim, committee membership for Medtronic, Vifor Pharma, Amgen, Servier, and Novartis, and grants from the European Commission. M.R.W. reported consulting fees from Vifor Pharma and AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Vifor Pharma. P.V.d.M. reported grants from Vifor Pharma, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Ionis, consulting fees from Vifor Pharma, Novartis and AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Vifor Pharma and Pharmacosmos. L.H.L. reported grants from AstraZeneca, Vifor, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis, consulting fees from Merck, Vifor Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pharmacosmos, MedScape, Sanofi, Lexicon, Myokardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier, honoraria from Abbott, MedScape, Radcliffe, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, and stock options and patents with AnaCardio. F.D. reported support and stock options from Vifor Pharma as a Vifor employee. F.P. reported consulting fees from Vifor Pharma and Novo Nordisk, honoraria from Servier, Pfizer, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and presidency (unpaid) of the World Heart Federation. S.D.A. reports consulting fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiac Dimension, Cordio, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Occlutech, Servier, and Vifor Pharma, and grant support from Abbott and Vifor Pharma. M.M. reported consulting fees from Actelion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Servier, Edwards Therapeutics, Livanova, Vifor Pharma, and WindTree Therapeutics. UMG reports grants, support and stock options from Vifor Pharma. M.K. reported consulting fees from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma, grants from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, and grant support from Abbott and Vifor Pharma, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. A.C. reported honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Servier, Vifor, Abbott, Actimed, Arena, Cardiac Dimensions, Corvia, CVRx, Enopace, ESN Cleer, Faraday, Gore, Impulse Dynamics, Respicardia, and Viatris. P.R. reported grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Fresenius, Novartis, Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma, Relypsa, and Vifor, consulting fees from Bayer, Idorsia, G3P, KBP, and Sanofi, honoraria from Sequana medical, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Fresenius, Novartis, Grünenthal, Stealth Peptides, Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal, Novo Nordisk, Ablative Solutions, Corvidia, Relypsa, and Vifor CardioRenal, and non-financial support from Servier, Fresenius, and G3P. I.L.P. serves on an advisory board for Vifor Pharma Ltd and on the Steering Committee of the DIAMOND clinical trial. B.P. reported consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Sanofi/Lexicon, SCPharmaceuticals, SQinnovations, G3 Pharmaceuticals, Sarfez, KBP biosciences, Cereno scientific, Phase bio, Proton Intel, and Vifor Pharma, stock options from SCPharmaceuticals, SQinnovations, G3 Pharmaceuticals, Sarfez, Cereno scientific, KBP biosciences, Proton Intel, and Vifor Pharma, US Patent 9931412- site specific delivery of eplerenone to the myocardium, and US Patent pending 63/045,783—Histone-modulating agents for the treatment and prevention of organ damage. No other authors reported disclosures., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Survival rates in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remain low with conventional advanced cardiac life support (ACLS). Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) implantation during ongoing resuscitation, a method called extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), may increase survival. This study examined whether ECPR is associated with improved outcomes., Methods: Prague OHCA trial enrolled adults with a witnessed refractory OHCA of presumed cardiac origin. In this secondary analysis, the effect of ECPR on 180-day survival using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazard model was examined., Results: Among 256 patients (median age 58 years, 83% male) with median duration of resuscitation 52.5 min (36.5-68), 83 (32%) patients achieved prehospital ROSC during ongoing conventional ACLS prehospitally, 81 (32%) patients did not achieve prehospital ROSC with prolonged conventional ACLS, and 92 (36%) patients did not achieve prehospital ROSC and received ECPR. The overall 180-day survival was 51/83 (61.5%) in patients with prehospital ROSC, 1/81 (1.2%) in patients without prehospital ROSC treated with conventional ACLS and 22/92 (23.9%) in patients without prehospital ROSC treated with ECPR (log-rank p &lt; 0.001). After adjustment for covariates (age, sex, initial rhythm, prehospital ROSC status, time of emergency medical service arrival, resuscitation time, place of cardiac arrest, percutaneous coronary intervention status), ECPR was associated with a lower risk of 180-day death (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14-0.31; P &lt; 0.001)., Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of the randomized refractory OHCA trial, ECPR was associated with improved 180-day survival in patients without prehospital ROSC., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666, Registered 19 January 2012., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death among patients with chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in patients with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction remains less certain., Methods: We randomly assigned 6263 patients with heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or matching placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (which was defined as either an unplanned hospitalization for heart failure or an urgent visit for heart failure) or cardiovascular death, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis., Results: Over a median of 2.3 years, the primary outcome occurred in 512 of 3131 patients (16.4%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 610 of 3132 patients (19.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.92; P<0.001). Worsening heart failure occurred in 368 patients (11.8%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 455 patients (14.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.91); cardiovascular death occurred in 231 patients (7.4%) and 261 patients (8.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05). Total events and symptom burden were lower in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group. Results were similar among patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 60% or more and those with a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 60%, and results were similar in prespecified subgroups, including patients with or without diabetes. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the combined risk of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death among patients with heart failure and a mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. (Funded by AstraZeneca; DELIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03619213.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Published evidence regarding the effect of gender on outcome after out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is inconsistent. We aimed to investigate the association of gender to outcome and resuscitation characteristics in OHCA patients admitted to the cardiac arrest center., Methods: In this retrospective analysis of prospective registry data, all patients admitted for OHCA were included. The influence of gender on 30-day survival and good neurological outcome (cerebral performance category of 1 or 2) were examined using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable logistic regression., Results: In total, 932 patients were analysed (239 women, 26%). Women were older (64 vs 60 years, p < 0.001) and less commonly had a shockable rhythm (47% vs 65%, P < 0.001) compared to men. Women were less likely to have a cardiac cause of arrest (54% vs. 75%, p < 0.001), received less therapeutic hypothermia (74% vs 86%, p < 0.001) and coronary angiography (63% vs. 79%, p < 0.001). The overall 30-day survival was lower for women (45% vs. 53%, log-rank p = 0.005) as well as good neurological outcome (37% vs. 46%, p = 0.008). However, according to the multivariate logistic regression, gender was not associated with survival (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.65-1.50, p = 0.94) nor with good neurological outcome (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59-1.40, p = 0.67)., Conclusion: Women admitted for OHCA to a cardiac center had a different cause of arrest that had a different treatment and outcome compared to men. Survival and good neurological outcome were lower in women, however, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, gender was not associated with survival nor neurological outcome., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Daniel Rob, Petra Kavalkova, Jana Smalcova and Jan Belohlavek received funding from the research grant (Ministry of Health, Czech Republic – conceptual development of research organization, General University Hospital in Prague, 00064165). There was no other relevant conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This report describes the baseline clinical profiles and management of DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial participants and how these compare with those in other contemporary heart failure with preserved ejection fraction trials., Background: The DELIVER trial was designed to evaluate the effects of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on cardiovascular death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or urgent HF visits in patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Methods: Adults with symptomatic HF and LVEF >40%, with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus, elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and evidence of structural heart disease were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or matching placebo., Results: A total of 6,263 patients were randomized (mean age: 72 ± 10 years; 44% women; 45% type 2 diabetes mellitus; 45% with body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ; and 57% with history of atrial fibrillation or flutter). Most participants had New York Heart Association functional class II symptoms (75%). Baseline mean LVEF was 54.2 ± 8.8% and median NT-proBNP of 1,399 pg/mL (IQR: 962 to 2,210 pg/mL) for patients in atrial fibrillation/flutter compared with 716 pg/mL (IQR: 469 to 1,281 pg/mL) in those who were not. Patients in both hospitalized and ambulatory settings were enrolled, including 10% enrolled in-hospital or within 30 days of a hospitalization for HF. Eighteen percent of participants had HF with improved LVEF., Conclusions: DELIVER is the largest and broadest clinical trial of this population to date and enrolled high-risk, well-treated patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved LVEF. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [NCT03619213])., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The DELIVER study was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellProThera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi, speaker engagements with Novartis and Roche Diagnostics, and participates on clinical endpoint committees for studies sponsored by Galmed and Novartis. Dr Claggett has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr De Boer’s institution, the UMCG, has received research grants and fees (outside the submitted work) from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardio Pharmaceuticals Gmbh, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. Dr de Boer has received speaker fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Roche (outside the submitted work). Dr DeMets has received consulting fees from Frontier Science, Actelion, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck; and has received consulting fees and is the owner of DL DeMets Consulting. Dr Hernandez has received research support from American Regent, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, and Verily; and has served as a consultant or on the Advisory Board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Myokardia, Merck, Novartis, and Vifor. Dr Inzucchi has served on clinical trial committees or as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Lexicon, Merck, Pfizer, vTv Therapeutics, Abbott, and Esperion; and has given lectures sponsored by AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Kosiborod has received research grant support from AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma; has received other research support from AstraZeneca; and has received honorarium from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Lam is supported by a Clinician Scientist Award from the National Medical Research Council of Singapore; has received research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, and Roche Diagnostics; has served as a consultant or on the advisory board/steering committee/executive committee for Actelion, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Darma Inc, Us2.ai, Janssen Research & Development LLC, Medscape, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Radcliffe Group Ltd, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and WebMD Global LLC; and serves as the cofounder and non-executive director of Us2.ai. Dr Martinez has received personal fees from AstraZeneca. Drs Shah and Belohjavek have received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr Chiang has received honoraria and consultation fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr Borleffs has received speaker fees and institutional research support from AstraZeneca; has received speaker fees from Novartis; and has received institutional research support from Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Comin-Comet has received personal and institutional financial support for the DELIVER study from AstraZeneca; outside this work, he has received fees for speaking and fees for consultancy from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Orion Pharma, and Vifor Pharma; and he has received research grants from Novartis, Orion Pharma, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Dobreanu has received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr Drozdz has received personal and institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr Fang has received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr Gamba has received personal fees from Sanfer, Roche, Amgen, Asofarma, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Merck, Abbott, Silanes, Servier, Jansen Cilag, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Drs Al Habeeb, Han, Cabrera, Janssens, Vardeny, and Nguyen have received either personal or institutional research support for DELIVER from AstraZeneca. Dr Katova has received fees for serving as national coordinator from Novartis and AstraZeneca. Dr Kitakaze has received support for the present manuscript (funding, provision of study materials, medical writing, article processing charges, etc) from AstraZeneca, has received grants or contracts from the Japanese government through the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development Japan Heart Foundation, and has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AstraZeneca, Ono, Novartis, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Japan Medical Data Center, Takeda, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Otsuka, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Kowa, Toyama-Kagaku, Kureha, Viatris, and Mochida. Dr Merkely has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Servier. Dr O’Meara has served as a consultant and speaker for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; has served as a steering committee member or a national lead investigator with contracts between her institution (Montreal Heart Institute Research Center) and American Regent, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, Merck, and Novartis; and has ongoing clinical trial participation with Amgen, Abbott, American Regent, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr Kerr Saraiva has received research grant support from Pfizer, Daichii Sankyo, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Amgen, and Novartis; and has received honorarium from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Astra Zeneca, and Amgen. Dr Tereshchenko has received personal fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Thierer has received support for lectures and advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Dr Verma has received research grants and/or speaking honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EOCI Pharmacomm Ltd, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and the Toronto Knowledge Translation Working Group; and is the President of the Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, a federally incorporated not-for-profit physician organization. Drs Wilderäng, Zaozerska, Lindholm, and Petersson are employees and shareholders of AstraZeneca. Dr McMurray has received funding to his institution, Glasgow University, for his work on clinical trials, consulting, and other activities from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardurion, Cytokinetics, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, and Theracos; and has received personal lecture fees from the Corpus, Abbott, Hickma, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and Medsca., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has poor outcome. Whether intra-arrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), and immediate invasive assessment and treatment (invasive strategy) is beneficial in this setting remains uncertain., Objective: To determine whether an early invasive approach in adults with refractory OHCA improves neurologically favorable survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, randomized clinical trial in Prague, Czech Republic, of adults with a witnessed OHCA of presumed cardiac origin without return of spontaneous circulation. A total of 256 participants, of a planned sample size of 285, were enrolled between March 2013 and October 2020. Patients were observed until death or day 180 (last patient follow-up ended on March 30, 2021)., Interventions: In the invasive strategy group (n = 124), mechanical compression was initiated, followed by intra-arrest transport to a cardiac center for ECPR and immediate invasive assessment and treatment. Regular advanced cardiac life support was continued on-site in the standard strategy group (n = 132)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was survival with a good neurologic outcome (defined as Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] 1-2) at 180 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included neurologic recovery at 30 days (defined as CPC 1-2 at any time within the first 30 days) and cardiac recovery at 30 days (defined as no need for pharmacological or mechanical cardiac support for at least 24 hours)., Results: The trial was stopped at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board when prespecified criteria for futility were met. Among 256 patients (median age, 58 years; 44 [17%] women), 256 (100%) completed the trial. In the main analysis, 39 patients (31.5%) in the invasive strategy group and 29 (22.0%) in the standard strategy group survived to 180 days with good neurologic outcome (odds ratio [OR], 1.63 [95% CI, 0.93 to 2.85]; difference, 9.5% [95% CI, -1.3% to 20.1%]; P = .09). At 30 days, neurologic recovery had occurred in 38 patients (30.6%) in the invasive strategy group and in 24 (18.2%) in the standard strategy group (OR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.11 to 3.57]; difference, 12.4% [95% CI, 1.9% to 22.7%]; P = .02), and cardiac recovery had occurred in 54 (43.5%) and 45 (34.1%) patients, respectively (OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.91 to 2.47]; difference, 9.4% [95% CI, -2.5% to 21%]; P = .12). Bleeding occurred more frequently in the invasive strategy vs standard strategy group (31% vs 15%, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the bundle of early intra-arrest transport, ECPR, and invasive assessment and treatment did not significantly improve survival with neurologically favorable outcome at 180 days compared with standard resuscitation. However, the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666.