Clinical Outcomes of Early Extubation Strategy in Patients Undergoing Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) might be considered a bridge therapy in patients who are expected to have short waiting times for heart transplantation. We investigated the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent VA-ECMO as a bridge to heart transplantation and whether the deployment of an early extubation ECMO strategy is beneficial. METHODS: Between November 2006 and December 2018, we studied 102 patients who received VA-ECMO as a bridge to heart transplantation. We classified these patients into an early extubation ECMO group (n = 24) and a deferred extubation ECMO group (n = 78) based on the length of the intubated period on VA-ECMO (≤ 48 hours or > 48 hours). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The median duration of early extubation VA-ECMO was 10.0 (4.3-17.3) days. The most common cause for patients to be put on ECMO was dilated cardiomyopathy (65.7%) followed by ischemic cardiomyopathy (11.8%). In-hospital mortality rates for the deferred extubation and early extubation groups, respectively, were 24.4% and 8.3% (P = 0.147). During the study period, in the deferred extubation group, 60 (76.9%) underwent transplantation, while 22 (91.7%) underwent transplantation in the early extubation group. Delirium occurred in 83.3% and 33.3% of patients from the deferred extubation and early extubation groups (P < 0.001) and microbiologically confirmed infection was identified in 64.1% and 41.7% of patients from the two groups (P = 0.051), respectively. CONCLUSION: VA-ECMO as a bridge therapy seems to be feasible for deployment in patients with a short waiting time for heart transplantation. Deployment of the early extubation ECMO strategy was associated with reductions in delirium and infection in this population.

Discriminative Role of Invasive Left Heart Catheterization in Patients Suspected of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Background Recently, diastolic stress testing and invasive hemodynamic measurements have been emphasized for diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) because when determined using noninvasive parameters it can fall into a nondiagnostic intermediate range. The current study evaluated the discriminative and prognostic roles of invasive measured left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in the population with suspected HFpEF, particularly for patients with intermediate Heart Failure Association Pre-test Assessment, Echocardiography & Natriuretic Peptide, Functional Testing, Final Etiology (HFA-PEFF) score. Methods and Results A total of 404 patients with symptoms or signs of HF and preserved left ventricular systolic function were enrolled. All subjects underwent left heart catheterization with left ventricular end-diastolic pressure measurement for confirmation of HFpEF (≥16 mm Hg). The primary outcome was all-cause death or readmission due to HF within 10 years. Among the study population, 324 patients (80.2%) were diagnosed as invasively confirmed HFpEF, and 80 patients (19.8%) were as noncardiac dyspnea. The patients with HFpEF showed a significantly higher HFA-PEFF score than the patients with noncardiac dyspnea (3.8±1.8 versus 2.6±1.5, P<0.001). The discriminative ability of the HFA-PEFF score for diagnosing HFpEF was modest (area under the curve, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.64-0.75], P<0.001). The HFA-PEFF score was associated with a significantly higher 10-year risk of death or HF readmission (per-1 increase, hazard ratio [HR], 1.603 [95% CI, 1.376-1.868], P<0.001). Among the 226 patients with an intermediate HFA-PEFF score (2-4), those with invasively confirmed HFpEF had a significantly higher risk of death or HF readmission within 10 years than the patients with noncardiac dyspnea (24.0% versus 6.9%, HR, 3.327 [95% CI, 1.109-16.280], P=0.030). Conclusions The HFA-PEFF score is a moderately useful tool for predicting future adverse events in suspected HFpEF, and invasively measured left ventricular end-diastolic pressure can provide additional information to discriminate patient prognosis, particularly in those with intermediate HFA-PEFF scores. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505449.

Prognostic implications of coronary artery disease and stress tests in patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure and preserved ejection fraction.

Background: The prognostic role of myocardial ischemia in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not been fully elucidated. Therefore, we investigated the change in echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes based on the presence of epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) and positive stress tests in HFpEF patients. Methods: Symptomatic patients with left ventricular end diastolic pressure ≥15 mmHg who underwent coronary angiography were analyzed between January 2000 and August 2019 after exclusion of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Results: A total of 555 HFpEF patients were invasively confirmed, 285 (51%) had angiographically-proven CAD. HFpEF patients with CAD displayed greater deterioration in left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.002) over time but this was not observed in those without CAD (p = 0.99) on follow-up echocardiography; however, the mitral annulus early diastolic velocity (e') was significantly decreased in both groups (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). Among 274 patients that received stress tests, those with positive stress tests showed a decline in e' (p 0.001), but this was not found in subjects with negative stress tests (p = 0.44). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients with CAD and without CAD (p = 0.26) with a median follow-up of 10.6 years. Conclusion: In HFpEF patients, CAD was associated with greater deterioration in the left ventricular systolic function but not with mortality during the follow-up. In addition, myocardial ischemia with a positive stress test may contribute to greater deterioration of diastolic dysfunction.

Differential effects of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients presented with acute coronary syndrome vs. stable ischaemic heart disease after coronary artery bypass grafting.

AIMS: The current study sought to evaluate whether long-term clinical outcomes according to the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) differed between acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and stable ischaemic heart disease (SIHD) patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2001 and December 2017, 3199 patients with ACS (55.3%) and 2583 with SIHD (44.7%) who underwent isolated CABG were enrolled. The study population was stratified using DAPT or SAPT in ACS patients and SIHD patients. The primary outcome was a cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 5 years. After CABG, DAPT was more frequently used in patients with ACS than in those with SIHD [n = 1960 (61.3%) vs. n = 1313 (50.8%), P < 0.001]. Among patients with ACS, the DAPT group showed a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or MI at 5 years than the SAPT group [DAPT vs. SAPT, 4.0% vs. 7.8%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.521, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.339-0.799; P = 0.003]. In contrast, among patients with SIHD, there was no significant difference in the rate of cardiovascular death or MI at 5 years between the use of DAPT and SAPT (4.0% vs. 4.0%, HR 0.991, 95% CI 0.604-1.626; P = 0.971). These findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses and competing risk analysis. In the subgroup analysis, the use of DAPT was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or MI among SIHD patients with a previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with a significant interaction between the use of DAPT and PCI history (interaction P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Among ACS patients who underwent CABG, the use of DAPT was associated with lower cardiovascular death or MI than the use of SAPT, but this was not the case in SIHD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03870815.