Search

(1) Introduction: Simultaneous ECMO and IABP therapy is frequently used. Haemodynamic changes responsible for the success of the concomitant mechanical circulatory support system approach are rarely investigated. In a large-animal model, we analysed haemodynamic parameters before and during ECMO therapy, comparing central and peripheral ECMO circulation with and without simultaneous IABP support. (2) Methods: Thirty-three female pigs were divided into five groups: (1) SHAM, (2) (peripheral)ECMO(-)IABP, (3) (p)ECMO(+)IABP, (4) (central)ECMO(-)IABP, and (5) (c)ECMO(+)IABP. Pigs were cannulated in accordance with the group and supported with ECMO (+/- IABP) for 10 h. Systemic haemodynamics, cardiac index (CI), and coronary and carotid artery blood flow were determined before, directly after, and at five and ten hours on extracorporeal support. Systemic inflammation (IL-6; IL-10; TNF alpha; IFN gamma), immune response (NETs; cf-DNA), and endothelial injury (ET-1) were also measured. (3) Results: IABP support during antegrade ECMO circulation led to a significant reduction of left ventricular pressure in comparison to retrograde flow in (p)ECMO(-)IABP and (p)ECMO(+)IABP. Blood flow in the left anterior coronary and carotid artery was not affected by extracorporeal circulation. (4) Conclusions: Concomitant central ECMO and IABP therapy leads to significant reduction of intracavitary cardiac pressure, reduces cardiac work, and might therefore contribute to improved recovery in ECMO patients.

Objectives Simultaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is common in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS). This study aimed to analyse the effect of concomitant ECMO and IABP therapy on the short-term outcomes of patients with PCS. Methods Between March 2006 and March 2017, 172 consecutive patients with central (c) or peripheral (p) venoarterial ECMO therapy due to PCS were identified at the current institution and included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into ECMO+IABP and ECMO alone groups. Further, the impact of ECMO flow direction was analysed for the groups. Results A total of 129 patients received ECMO+IABP support and 43 patients were treated with ECMO alone. Median ECMO duration did not differ between the groups (68 [34; 95] hours ECMO+IABP vs 44 [20; 103] hours ECMO; p=0.151). However, a trend toward a higher weaning rate was evident in ECMO+IABP patients (75 [58%] ECMO+IABP vs 18 [42%] ECMO; p=0.078). Concomitant IABP support with either cECMO (73% [n=24] cECMO+IABP vs 50% [n=11] ECMO; p=0.098) or pECMO (57% [n=55] ECMO+IABP vs 33% [n=7] ECMO; p=0.056) was also associated with a trend toward a higher weaning rate off ECMO. In-hospital mortality did not differ between the groups. Conclusion This analysis found that, independent of ECMO type, additional IABP support might increase ECMO weaning; however, it did not influence survival in PCS patients. Larger studies are necessary to further analyse the impact of this concomitant MSC therapy on clinical outcomes.

Background Performing cardiac surgery in patients with cardiovascular risk factors incorporates a steady risk for the development of postoperative complications. Perioperative statin intake was associated with an improvement of perioperative outcomes in these patients. However, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines regarding the perioperative statin treatment were changed recently due to large studies reporting about relevant adverse effects related to statin therapy. Methods All relevant databases were searched including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. Various registries were screened (National Research Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov, and gray literature) with search on online conference indices of relevant scientific meetings. No language restrictions were applied. Results We identified 10 randomized controlled studies summarizing 3,468 participants undergoing various kinds of cardiac surgical procedures. All included studies presented with marked differences regarding study design. Pooled analysis indicated that statin pretreatment was associated with a formally reduced incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) (odds ratio [OR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.00; p =0.05) but with an increased incidence of renal failure (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44; p =0.04) compared with control. Substantial heterogeneity was observed among studies reporting about AF. Conclusion Current but sparse evidence reveals that statin pretreatment is associated with a higher rate of postoperative renal failure compared with control therapy but is ineffective to substantially reduce postoperative AF. Given the relevant heterogeneity among included studies, statin pretreatment cannot be generally recommended.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infections have been recently shown to be associated with a high rate of thromboembolic events due to pro-coagulative mechanisms that have not yet been fully understood. This paper reports on a 55-year-old female COVID-19 patient with severe ARDS and pulmonary embolism (PE) complicated by cardiogenic shock after 12 days of hospitalization under initial prophylactic anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). An ultima-ratio va (veno-arterial) ECMO implantation and subsequent rapid upgrade to vvaECMO due to insufficient oxygenation was performed. The patient developed severe coagulopathy with intrapulmonary bleeding. The present report aims to highlight and discuss the pros and cons of various anticoagulation strategies in COVID-19 patients focusing on current scientific debates to address this frequently observed complication in the current situation worldwide.

The alpha variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is associated with higher transmissibility and possibly higher mortality compared with wild-type SARS-CoV-2. However, few data are available on the clinical course of infections with the alpha variant compared with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed patients admitted to our ICU due to SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant infection and compared characteristics and course to patients with SARS-CoV-2 wild-type infection. The median age of patients with Alpha variant infections was 57 years compared to 62 years in the wild-type group. ICU survival was 41/80 (51%) in the Alpha variant group and 35/80 (44%) in the wild-type group (p = 0.429). Results of a matched-pair analysis based on age and sex illustrated that 45/58 patients (77.6%) in the Alpha variant group and 38/58 (65.5%) patients in the wild-type group required mechanical ventilation (p = 0.217). ICU survival was documented for 28/58 patients (48.3%) in the Alpha variant group and 27/58 patients (46.6%) in the wild-type group (p = 1). Thus, ICU mortality among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infections remains high. Although the Alpha variant group included younger patients requiring mechanical ventilation, no significant differences between patients with the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant and the SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, respectively, were detected with respect to clinical course and ICU mortality. For future VOCs, we believe it would be important to obtain valid and rapid data on the clinical course of critically ill patients who test positive for COVID-19 in order to perform appropriate epidemiological planning of intensive care capacity.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) occurs toward the end of pregnancy or in the months after delivery without previously known structural heart disease. Development of therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock is described in the literature with a limited number of overall presented cases in this young patient cohort. To provide differences and key points in the therapy of end-stage PPCM patients, we present a case series of four young women with PPCM referred to our department for potential VA ECMO support.

Background There has been conflicting evidence concerning the effect of levosimendan on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and conducted this meta-analysis to provide evidence for/against the administration of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients. Methods We performed a meta-analysis from literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trials comparing the administration of levosimendan in cardiac surgery patients with a control group (other inotrope, standard therapy/placebo, or an intra-aortic balloon pump) were included. In addition, at least one clinical outcome had to be mentioned: mortality, myocardial infarction, low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, atrial fibrillation, prolonged inotropic support, length of intensive care unit, and hospital stay. The pooled treatment effects (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence intervals [CI]) were assessed using a fixed or random effects model. Results The literature search retrieved 27 randomized, controlled trials involving a total of 3,198 patients. Levosimendan led to a significant reduction in mortality (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49-0.91;p = 0.0087). Furthermore, the incidence of LCOS (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.42-0.75;p < 0.0001), acute kidney injury (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.86;p = 0.0039), and renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.50-0.98;p = 0.0332) was significantly decreased in the levosimendan group. Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests beneficial effects for the prophylactic use of levosimendan in patients with severely impaired left ventricular function undergoing cardiac surgery. The administration of levosimendan was associated with a reduced mortality, less LCOS, and restored adequate organ perfusion reflected in less acute kidney injury.

Objective Patients with acute coronary syndrome are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy containing acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and P2Y12 antagonists. In case of urgent coronary artery bypass grafting this might be associated with increasing risks of bleeding complications. Methods Data from 1200 consecutive urgent operations between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from our institutional patient database. For this study off-pump surgery was excluded. The primary composite end point major bleeding consisted of at least one end point: transfusion >= 5 packed red blood cells within 24hours, rethoracotomy due to bleeding, chest tube output >2000mL within 24hours. Demographic data, peri-, and postoperative variables and outcomes were compared between patients treated with mono antiplatelet therapy, ASA+clopidogrel (ASA-C) +ticagrelor (ASA-T) or +prasugrel (ASA-P)<72hours before surgery. Furthermore, we compared patients with dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA monotherapy. Results From 1,086 patients, 475 (44%) received dual antiplatelet therapy. Three-hundred seventy-two received ASA-C (77.7%), 72 ASA-T (15%), and 31 ASA-P (6.5%). Major bleeding (44 vs. 23%, p <0.0001) was more frequently in patients receiving dual therapy with higher rates of massive drainage loss within 24hours (23 vs. 11%, p <0.0001) of mass transfusion (34 vs. 16%, p <0.0001) and rethoracotomy (10 vs. 5%, p =0.002) when compared with ASA. In this analysis, ASA-T and ASA-P were not associated with higher bleeding complications compared with ASA-C. Conclusion Dual antiplatelet therapy is associated with higher rates of major bleeding. Further studies should examine the difference in the prevalence of major bleeding complications in the different dual antiplatelet therapy regimes in patients requiring urgent surgery.

Background Stanford A acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening emergency. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of three different aortic entry tear sites on early outcomes and long-term survival of patients with Stanford A AAD. Methods From January 2006 to April 2015, a total of 240 consecutive patients with diagnosed Stanford A AAD underwent emergent, isolated surgical aortic repair in our center. Patients were divided into three groups comprising isolated ascending aorta, proximal aortic arch, and distal aortic arch entry tear site and were followed up for up to 9 years. Results Thirty-day mortality as well as major cerebrovascular events were significantly different between the three groups ( p =0.007 and p =0.048, respectively). Overall cumulative short- and long-term survival of all patients revealed significant differences (Log-Rank p =0.002), whereas survival of all patients free from major cerebrovascular events was similar (Log-Rank p =0.780). Subgroup analysis of short- and long-term survival of patients showed significant differences in terms of men (Log-Rank p =0.043), women (Log-Rank p =0.004), patients over 65 years of age (Log-Rank p =0.007), and hypertensive patients (Log-Rank p =0.003). Kaplan-Meier survival estimation plots significantly showed poorest survival for distal aortic arch entry tear site group. Conclusion The location of the primary entry tear in patients with Stanford A AAD significantly influences early outcomes, short- and long-term survival of patients, whereas survival of patients free from major cerebrovascular events showed similar results among the three groups. Distal aortic entry tear site showed poorest outcomes and survival.

Background: There has been an increasing incidence of right-sided infective endocarditis (RSIE) due to the global rise of intravenous drug use (IVDU) and an increasing number of implantable cardiac electronic devices and central venous catheters. Our aim was to investigate differences in the clinical presentation, microbiological findings and prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for RSIE compared to left-sided infective endocarditis (LSIE). Methods: Relevant clinical data of all 432 consecutive patients undergoing valve surgery for infective endocarditis (IE) at our institution between January 2009 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Acquired data included patients' demographic and preoperative comorbidities, manifestation of IE according to the recently modified Duke Criteria, perioperative data and relevant clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 403 patients (93.3%) underwent surgery for LSIE and twenty-nine patients (6.7%) for RSIE. Eleven patients with RSIE (37.9%) showed a concomitant left-sided infection. Compared to LSIE, RSIE patients were significantly younger [47.5 (40.4-69.3) vs. 65.1 (53.7-74.6); P=0.008] and presented with less comorbidities such as hypertension (41.4% vs. 65.3%; P=0.010) and coronary artery disease (6.9% vs. 29.0%; P=0.010). Rates of IVDU (34.5% vs. 4.5%; P<0.001), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (10.3% vs. 1.7%; P=0.023) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (24.1% vs. 5.2%; P=0.001) were greater in RSIE. The proportion of Staphylococcus aureus IE was significantly higher in RSIE compared to LSIE (37.9% vs. 21.1%; P=0.035). 30-day mortality was 6.9% after surgery for RSIE compared to 14.6% after operation for LSIE (P=0.372). Conclusions: Patients undergoing surgery for RSIE compared to LSIE presented with a higher rate of pulmonary septic emboli, more Staphylococcus aureus infections and larger vegetations. Larger multicenter prospective trials are needed to provide more reliable data on the clinical profile of the