Modifiable Mechanical Ventilation Targets Are Associated With Improved Survival in Ventilated VA-ECLS Patients.

BACKGROUND: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung protective ventilation (LPV) improves patient outcomes by minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury. The value of LPV in ventilated patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) requiring venoarterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) is not known, but the extracorporeal circuit provides a unique opportunity to modify ventilatory parameters to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The authors hypothesized that CS patients on VA-ECLS who require mechanical ventilation (MV) may benefit from low intrapulmonary pressure ventilation (LPPV), which has the same end goals as LPV. METHODS: The authors queried the ELSO (Extracorporeal Life Support Organization) registry for hospital admissions between 2009 and 2019 for CS patients on VA-ECLS and MV. They defined LPPV as peak inspiratory pressure at 24 hours on ECLS of <30 cm H2O. Positive end-expiration pressure and dynamic driving pressure (DDP) at 24 hours were also studied as continuous variables. Their primary outcome was survival to discharge. Multivariable analyses were performed that adjusted for baseline Survival After Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation score, chronic lung conditions, and center extracorporeal membrane oxygenation volume. RESULTS: A total of 2,226 CS patients on VA-ECLS were included: 1,904 received LPPV. The primary outcome was higher in the LPPV group vs the no-LPPV group (47.4% vs 32.6%; P < 0.001). Median peak inspiratory pressure (22 vs 24 cm H2O; P < 0.001) as well as DDP (14.5 vs 16 cm H2O; P < 0.001) were also significantly lower in those surviving to discharge. The adjusted OR for the primary outcome with LPPV was 1.69 (95% CI: 1.21-2.37; P = 0.0021). CONCLUSIONS: LPPV is associated with improved outcomes in CS patients on VA-ECLS requiring MV.

Transplant Volume Is Associated With Graft Acceptance Threshold and Center Resource Availability.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplant volume varies significantly among centers. We hypothesized that centers where the transplant team routinely accepts organs previously declined by other centers and where operating room availability is unrestricted have higher transplant volumes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the potential transplant recipient sequence number in the United Network for Organ Sharing database as a surrogate for graft acceptance threshold and the number of transplantations occurring on weekends and 8 major holidays as a marker of center resource availability. Centers were classified as low-, medium-, or high-volume if the average annual number of transplants were, respectively, <10, 10-30, or >30 over a 10-year period. From July 12, 2006, to December 31, 2015, 19,054 transplants were performed by 142 centers. There were 59 low-volume centers, 69 medium-volume centers, and 14 high-volume centers with median potential transplant recipient sequence numbers for transplanted candidates of 7 (interquartile range 3-11), 7 (5-10), and 15 (7-40), respectively (P = .002). The median proportion of off-hours transplantations performed by medium-volume centers was 28% (25%-31%) compared with 32% (29%-33%) by high-volume centers (P = .009). Five-year survival was equivalent among all centers (P = .053). CONCLUSIONS: Transplants for candidates with high sequence numbers and unrestricted operating room availability are associated with increased center volume without sacrificing post-transplantation survival.

Moderate Aortic Insufficiency with a Left Ventricular Assist Device Portends a Worse Long-Term Survival.

The development of aortic insufficiency (AI) is known to be associated with prolonged left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, but its overall significance with regards to long-term outcomes is unclear. This uncertainty translates to a lack of consensus regarding the management of AI in this patient population-an increasingly pertinent question as more patients are placed on LVAD support as destination therapy. A retrospective review of a single, high-volume institution was performed to assess outcomes in patients who received a HeartMate II or HeartWare (LVAD) between 2008 and 2018. Patients were stratified by AI severity at 6 months, and those with LVAD support of less than 6 months were excluded. The primary endpoint was 2 year mortality, and secondary endpoints were right heart failure and functional exercise capacity. At 6 month follow-up 111, 92, and 18 patients had no (0), mild (1), and moderate (2) AI, respectively. Moderate AI was a significant predictor of 2 year mortality in a multivariable model (p = 0.024). Functional exercise capacity (measured by 6 minute walk test) and incidence of right heart failure at 1 year were not significantly different between groups (P = 0.1421; P = 0.2189). In conclusion, moderate AI at 6 months post-LVAD implant is associated with worse long-term mortality. More aggressive management strategies targeting AI development in long-term LVAD patients may be warranted.