Initial experience with CytoSorb therapy in patients receiving left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) in patients with advance heart failure is still associated with an important risk of immune dysregulation and infections. The aim of this study was to determine whether extracorporeal blood purification using the CytoSorb device benefits patients after LVAD implantation in terms of complications and overall survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2010 and January 2020, 207 consecutive patients underwent LVAD implantation, of whom 72 underwent CytoSorb therapy and 135 did not. Overall survival, major adverse events, and laboratory parameters were compared between 112 propensity score-matched patients (CytoSorb: 72 patients; non-CytoSorb: 40 patients). RESULTS: WBC (p = .033), CRP (p = .001), and IL-6 (p < .001), significantly increased with LVAD implantation, while CytoSorb did not influence this response. In-hospital mortality and overall survival during follow-up were similar with CytoSorb. However, patients treated with CytoSorb were more likely to develop respiratory failure (54.2% vs. 30.0%, p = .024), need mechanical ventilation for longer than 6 days post-implant (50.0% vs. 27.5%, p = .035), and require tracheostomy during hospitalization (31.9% vs. 12.5%, p = .040). No other significant differences were observed with regard to major adverse events during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results showed that CytoSorb might not convey a significant morbidity or mortality benefit for patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

Outcomes of left ventricular assist device implantation for advanced heart failure in critically ill patients (INTERMACS 1 and 2): A retrospective study.

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for advanced heart failure is becoming increasingly common. However, optimal timing and patient selection remain controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes of LVAD implantation for advanced heart failure in critically ill patients (INTERMACS 1 and 2). Between August 2010 and January 2020, 207 consecutive patients underwent LVAD implantation. Overall survival, major adverse events, and laboratory parameters were compared between patients in INTERMACS 1-2 (n = 107) and INTERMACS 3-5 (n = 100). Preoperative white blood cells, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, bilirubin, alanine transaminase, and lactate dehydrogenase were all significantly higher in INTERMACS 1-2 when compared to INTERMACS 3-5 (P < .05). During hospitalization following LVAD implantation, patients in INTERMACS 1-2 were more likely to develop major infections (41.1% vs. 23.0%, P = .005), respiratory failure (57.9% vs. 25.0%, P < .001), mild (20.6% vs. 8.0%, P = .010), and moderate (31.8% vs. 7.0%, P < .001) right heart failure, and acute renal dysfunction (56.1% vs. 6.0%, P < .001). During a median follow-up of 2.00 years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.24-3.39 years), they had a higher incidence of thoracic (15.9% vs. 4.0%, P = .005) and gastrointestinal bleeding (21.5% vs. 11.0%, P = .042), as well as right heart failure (18.7% vs. 1%, P < .001). Risk of death was significantly higher in the INTERMACS 1-2 group (hazards ratio (HR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.12-2.40, P = .011). LVAD implantation in critically ill patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Our results suggest that decision for LVAD should be not be delayed until INTERMACS 1 and 2 levels whenever possible.

Three-step preoperative sequential planning for pulmonary valve replacement in repaired tetralogy of Fallot using computed tomography.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to compare results between a standard computed tomography (CT)-based strategy, the 'three-step preoperative sequential planning' (3-step PSP), for pulmonary valve replacement in repaired tetralogy of Fallot versus a conventional planning approach. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study with unmatched and matched groups. The 3-step PSP comprised the planning of mediastinal re-entry, cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and the main procedure, using standard 3-dimensional videos. Operative times (skin incision to CPB, CPB time, end of CPB to skin closure and cross-clamp time) as well as postoperative length of stay and in-hospital mortality were compared. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (49% classical tetralogy of Fallot) underwent an operation (85% with pulmonary homograft) with 1.22% in-hospital mortality. The 3-step PSP (n = 14) and the conventional planning (n = 68) groups were compared. There were no statistically significant differences in the preoperative characteristics. Differences were observed in the total operative time (P = 0.009), skin incision to CPB (P = 0.034) and cross-clamp times (74 ± 33 vs 108 ± 47 min; P = 0.006), favouring the 3-step PSP group. Eight matched pairs were compared showing differences in the total operative time (263 ± 44 vs 360 ± 66 min; P = 0.008), CPB time (123 ± 34 vs 190 ± 43 min; P = 0.008) and postoperative length of stay (P = 0.031), favouring the 3-step PSP group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot undergoing pulmonary valve replacement, preoperative planning using a standard CT-based strategy, the 3-step PSP, is associated with shorter operative times and shorter postoperative length of stay.

The Impact of Obesity on Left Ventricular Assist Device Outcomes.

Background and Objectives: The understanding of high body mass index (BMI) and outcomes after Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implantation continues to evolve and the relationship has not been established yet. In this study, we investigated the effects of obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) on post-LVAD implantation outcomes. HeartWare LVAD and Heart Mate III LVAD were implanted. The primary outcome that was measured was mortality (in-hospital and on follow-up). The secondary outcomes that were measured were major adverse events. Materials and Methods: At our institution, the West German Heart and Vascular Center (Essen, Germany), from August 2010 to January 2020, a total of 210 patients received a long-term LVAD. Patients were stratified according to BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 representing the obesity threshold. The first group (n = 162) had an average BMI of 24.2 kg/m2 (±2.9), and the second group (n = 48) had an average BMI of 33.9 kg/m2 (±3.2). Baseline demographics were analysed alongside comorbidities per group. Results: Overall mortality was not significantly different between the obese group (51.1% n = 24) and the nonobese group (55.2%, n = 85) (p = 0.619). The difference between the mean duration of survival of patients who expired after hospital discharge was insignificant (2.1 years ± 1.6, group 1; 2.6 years ± 1.5, group 2; p = 0.29). In-hospital mortality was unvaried between the two groups: group 1: n = 34 (44% out of overall group 1 deaths); group 2: n = 11 (45.8% out of overall group 2 deaths) (p > 0.05). Postoperative complications were unvaried between the obese and the non-obese group (all with p > 0.05). However, a significant difference was found with regards to follow-up neurological complications (18.5% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.01) and LVAD thrombosis (14.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.01), as both were higher in the obese population. Conclusion: Obesity does not form a barrier for LVAD implantation in terms of mortality (in-hospital and on follow up). However, a significantly higher incidence of follow-up LVAD thrombosis and neurological complications has been found in the obese group of patients.

Open surgical correction of multiple bronchial artery aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial artery aneurysms (BAAs) are a rare vascular entity. They can have various presentations ranging from an incidental finding on radiological examination to life-threatening hemoptysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We report the case of a 60-year-old woman with three posterior mediastinal BAAs who presented with unilateral periscapular pain, shortness of breath, hoarseness, and dysphagia. The BAAs were removed successfully via thoracotomy, with excellent recovery and relief of the periscapular pain. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We use this case as a platform to discuss the treatment options for BAAs.

Clinical outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal life support in 462 patients: Single-center experience.

This study aims to investigate the outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) in a large single-center patient cohort regarding survival and adverse events. Between June 2009 and March 2019, 462 consecutive patients received VA-ECLS. The mean age was 66.2 ± 11.9 years. Two patient groups were identified: Group 1-patients with ECLS due to postcardiotomy shock (PCS) after cardiac surgery (PCS, n = 357); Group 2-patients with ECLS due to cardiogenic shock (CS) without previous surgery (nonPCS, n = 105). The primary end point was overall in-hospital survival, while secondary end points were adverse events during the study period. Overall, the in-hospital survival rate was 26%. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups: 26.3% for PCS and 24.8% for nonPCS, respectively (P > .05). Weaning from VA-ECLS was possible in 44.3% for PCS and in 29.5% for nonPCS (P = .004). The strong predictors of overall mortality were postoperative hepatic dysfunction (OR = 14.362, 95%CI = 1.948-105.858), cardiopulmonary resuscitation > 30 minutes (OR = 6.301, 95%CI = 1.488-26.673), bleeding with a need for revision (OR = 2.123, 95%CI = 1.343-3.355), and previous sternotomy (OR = 2.077, 95%CI = 1.021-4.223). Despite its low survival rates, VA-ECLS therapy is the last resort and the only lifesaving option for patients in refractory CS. In contrast, there is still a lack of evidence for VA-ECLS in PCS patients. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the outcomes of VA-ECLS therapy after cardiac surgery.

Aortic Valve Neocuspidization with Glutaraldehyde-Treated Autologous Pericardium (Ozaki Procedure) - A Promising Surgical Technique.

In cases of aortic valve disease, prosthetic valves have been increasingly used for valve replacement, however, there are inherent problems with prostheses, and their quality in the so-called Third World countries is lower in comparison to new-generation models, which leads to shorter durability. Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been explored as a less invasive option for patients with high-risk surgical profile. In this scenario, aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) has emerged as another option, which can be applied to a wide spectrum of aortic valve diseases. Despite the promising results, this procedure is not widely spread among cardiac surgeons yet. Spurred on by the last publications, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art AVNeo and its results.

Aortic valve neocuspidization with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium (ozaki procedure) - a promising surgical technique

Abstract In cases of aortic valve disease, prosthetic valves have been increasingly used for valve replacement, however, there are inherent problems with prostheses, and their quality in the so-called Third World countries is lower in comparison to new-generation models, which leads to shorter durability. Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been explored as a less invasive option for patients with high-risk surgical profile. In this scenario, aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) has emerged as another option, which can be applied to a wide spectrum of aortic valve diseases. Despite the promising results, this procedure is not widely spread among cardiac surgeons yet. Spurred on by the last publications, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art AVNeo and its results.

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Improves Survival Without Increasing the Risk of Stroke in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure in Comparison to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis With 54,173 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether there is any difference on the results of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of ischemic heart failure (HF). METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. Main outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. RESULTS: The search yielded 5,775 studies for inclusion. Of these, 20 articles were analyzed, and their data were extracted. The total number of patients included was 54,173, and those underwent CABG (N=29,075) or PCI (N=25098). The hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality (HR 0.763; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.678-0.859; P<0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 0.481; 95% CI 0.365-0.633; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (HR 0.321; 95% CI 0.241-0.428; P<0.001) were lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group. The HR for stroke showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (random effect model: HR 0.879; 95% CI 0.625-1.237; P=0.459). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found that CABG surgery remains the best option for patients with ischemic HF, without increase in the risk of stroke.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery improves survival without increasing the risk of stroke in patients with ischemic heart failure in comparison to percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis with 54, 173 patients

Abstract Objective: To evaluate whether there is any difference on the results of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of ischemic heart failure (HF). Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. Main outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Results: The search yielded 5,775 studies for inclusion. Of these, 20 articles were analyzed, and their data were extracted. The total number of patients included was 54,173, and those underwent CABG (N=29,075) or PCI (N=25098). The hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality (HR 0.763; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.678-0.859; P<0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 0.481; 95% CI 0.365-0.633; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (HR 0.321; 95% CI 0.241-0.428; P<0.001) were lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group. The HR for stroke showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (random effect model: HR 0.879; 95% CI 0.625-1.237; P=0.459). Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that CABG surgery remains the best option for patients with ischemic HF, without increase in the risk of stroke.

Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on 1-Year Outcomes after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Meta-analysis of 71,106 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on the risk of early-term mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. PPM after TAVI was defined as moderate if the indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) was between 0.85 cm2/m2 and 0.65 cm2/m2 and as severe if iEOA ≤ 0.65 cm2/m2. RESULTS: The search yielded 1,092 studies for inclusion. Of these, 18 articles were analyzed, and their data extracted. The total number of patients included who underwent TAVI was 71,106. The incidence of PPM after TAVI was 36.3% (25,846 with PPM and 45,260 without PPM). One-year mortality was not increased in patients with any PPM (odds ratio [OR] 1.021, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.979-1.065, P=0.338) neither in those with moderate PPM (OR 0.980, 95% CI 0.933-1.029, P=0.423). Severe PPM was separately associated with high risk (OR 1.109, 95% CI 1.041-1.181, P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The presence of severe PPM after TAVI increased early-term mortality. Although moderate PPM seemed harmless, the findings of this study cannot not rule out the possibility of it being detrimental, since there are other registries that did not address this issue yet.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Neither Uncommon nor Harmless.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is an issue that has been overlooked (not to say neglected). Cardiac surgeons must bear in mind that this is a real problem that we must tackle. The purpose of this paper is to be a wake-up call to the surgical community by giving a brief overview of what PPM is, its incidence and impact on the outcomes. We also discuss the increasing role played by imaging for predicting and assessing PPM after SAVR (with which surgeons must become more acquainted) and, finally, we present some options to avoid PPM after the surgical procedure.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement: neither uncommon nor harmless

Abstract Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is an issue that has been overlooked (not to say neglected). Cardiac surgeons must bear in mind that this is a real problem that we must tackle. The purpose of this paper is to be a wake-up call to the surgical community by giving a brief overview of what PPM is, its incidence and impact on the outcomes. We also discuss the increasing role played by imaging for predicting and assessing PPM after SAVR (with which surgeons must become more acquainted) and, finally, we present some options to avoid PPM after the surgical procedure.

Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on 1-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: meta-analysis of 71, 106 patients

Abstract Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on the risk of early-term mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: Databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. PPM after TAVI was defined as moderate if the indexed effective orifice area (iEOA) was between 0.85 cm2/m2 and 0.65 cm2/m2 and as severe if iEOA ≤ 0.65 cm2/m2. Results: The search yielded 1,092 studies for inclusion. Of these, 18 articles were analyzed, and their data extracted. The total number of patients included who underwent TAVI was 71,106. The incidence of PPM after TAVI was 36.3% (25,846 with PPM and 45,260 without PPM). One-year mortality was not increased in patients with any PPM (odds ratio [OR] 1.021, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.979-1.065, P=0.338) neither in those with moderate PPM (OR 0.980, 95% CI 0.933-1.029, P=0.423). Severe PPM was separately associated with high risk (OR 1.109, 95% CI 1.041-1.181, P=0.001). Conclusion: The presence of severe PPM after TAVI increased early-term mortality. Although moderate PPM seemed harmless, the findings of this study cannot not rule out the possibility of it being detrimental, since there are other registries that did not address this issue yet.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch negatively affects outcomes after mitral valve replacement: meta-analysis of 10, 239 patients

Abstract Objective: This study sought to evaluate the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on the risk of perioperative and long-term mortality after mitral valve replacement. Methods: Databases were researched for studies published until December 2018. Main outcomes of interest were perioperative and 10-year mortality and echocardiographic parameters. Results: The research yielded 2,985 studies for inclusion. Of these, 16 articles were analyzed, and their data extracted. The total number of patients included was 10,239, who underwent mitral valve replacement. The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement was 53.7% (5,499 with prosthesis-patient mismatch and 4,740 without prosthesis-patient mismatch). Perioperative (OR 1.519; 95%CI 1.194-1.931, P<0.001) and 10-year (OR 1.515; 95%CI 1.280-1.795, P<0.001) mortality was increased in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch. Patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement had higher systolic pulmonary artery pressure and transprosthethic gradient and lower indexed effective orifice area and left ventricle ejection fraction. Conclusion: Prosthesis-patient mismatch increases perioperative and long-term mortality. Prosthesis-patient mismatch is also associated with pulmonary hypertension and depressed left ventricle systolic function. The findings of this study support the implementation of surgical strategies to prevent prosthesis-patient mismatch in order to decrease mortality rates.

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Negatively Affects Outcomes after Mitral Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of 10,239 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on the risk of perioperative and long-term mortality after mitral valve replacement. METHODS: Databases were researched for studies published until December 2018. Main outcomes of interest were perioperative and 10-year mortality and echocardiographic parameters. RESULTS: The research yielded 2,985 studies for inclusion. Of these, 16 articles were analyzed, and their data extracted. The total number of patients included was 10,239, who underwent mitral valve replacement. The incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement was 53.7% (5,499 with prosthesis-patient mismatch and 4,740 without prosthesis-patient mismatch). Perioperative (OR 1.519; 95%CI 1.194-1.931, P<0.001) and 10-year (OR 1.515; 95%CI 1.280-1.795, P<0.001) mortality was increased in patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch. Patients with prosthesis-patient mismatch after mitral valve replacement had higher systolic pulmonary artery pressure and transprosthethic gradient and lower indexed effective orifice area and left ventricle ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Prosthesis-patient mismatch increases perioperative and long-term mortality. Prosthesis-patient mismatch is also associated with pulmonary hypertension and depressed left ventricle systolic function. The findings of this study support the implementation of surgical strategies to prevent prosthesis-patient mismatch in order to decrease mortality rates.

Current Practice of State-of-the-Art Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Heart Failure.

The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.

Current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization in patients with heart failure

Abstract The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.