Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a clinical condition characterized by inadequate tissue perfusion in the setting of low cardiac output. CS is the leading cause of death following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Several temporary mechanical support devices are available for hemodynamic support in CS until clinical recovery ensues or until more definitive surgical procedures have been performed. Veno-arterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has evolved as a powerful treatment option for short-term circulatory support in refractory CS. In the absence of randomized clinical trials, the utilization of ECMO has been guided by clinical experience and based on data from registries and observational studies. Survival to hospital discharge with the use of VA-ECMO ranges from 28-67%. The initiation of ECMO requires venous and arterial cannulation, which can be performed either percutaneously or by surgical cutdown. Components of an ECMO circuit include an inflow cannula that draws blood from the venous system, a pump, an oxygenator, and an outflow cannula that returns blood to the arterial system. Management considerations post ECMO initiation include systemic anticoagulation to prevent thrombosis, left ventricle unloading strategies to augment myocardial recovery, prevention of limb ischemia with a distal perfusion catheter in cases of femoral arterial cannulation, and prevention of other complications such as hemolysis, air embolism, and Harlequin syndrome. ECMO is contraindicated in patients with uncontrolled bleeding, unrepaired aortic dissection, severe aortic insufficiency, and in futile cases such as severe neurological injury or metastatic malignancies. A multi-disciplinary shock team approach is recommended while considering patients for ECMO. Ongoing studies will evaluate whether the addition of routine ECMO improves survival in AMI patients with CS who undergo revascularization.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus redo surgical valve replacement for degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: An updated meta-analysis comparing midterm outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Redo surgical aortic valve replacement (redo SAVR) and valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) are the two treatment strategies available for patients with severe symptomatic bioprosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. Herein, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing both early and mid-term outcomes of ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valve disease. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane reviews, and Google scholar electronic databases were searched and studies comparing ViV TAVR versus redo SAVR were included. The primary outcome of interest was mid-term (1-5 years) and 1-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included were 30-day all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, pacemaker implantation, stroke, acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding, and postprocedural aortic valve gradients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all outcomes using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine observational studies with a total of 2,891 individuals and mean follow-up of 26 months met the inclusion criteria. There is no significant difference in mid-term and 1-year mortality between ViV-TAVR and redo SAVR groups with RR of 1.15 (95% CI 0.99-1.32; p = .06) and 1.06 (95% CI 0.69-1.61; p = .8). 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower in ViV-TAVR group with RR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.45-0.93; p = .02). ViV-TAVR group had lower 30-day bleeding, length of stay, and higher postoperative gradients. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates a lower 30-day mortality and similar 1-year and mid-term mortality for ViV TAVR compared to redo SAVR despite a higher baseline risk. Given these findings and the ongoing advances in the transcatheter therapeutics, VIV TAVR should be preferred over redo SAVR particularly in those at intermediate-high surgical risk.

Sex Differences in Clinical Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a reasonable alternative to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in well-selected patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (LMCD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the impact of sex on outcomes of PCI in patients with unprotected LMCD. METHODS: A systematic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify studies comparing the outcomes of men vs. women among patients undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCD. The primary outcome of interest was study defined major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis and stroke. For all outcomes, pooled odds ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 6515 individuals (4954 men, 1561women) with a mean follow up of 36 months were included in the analysis. MACE and MI were significantly higher in women with OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.01-1.36; p = 0.03) and 1.42 (95% CI 1.07-1.87; p = 0.01) respectively. All-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and TLR were similar among men and women. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that women undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCD have higher rates of MACE and MI compared to men.

A Case of Imatinib-Induced Hepatitis.

A 71-year-old female with a past medical history of Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myelogenous leukemia on imatinib therapy, Sjogren's syndrome, and hypothyroidism presents with acute hepatitis. After a comprehensive workup ruling out viral, infectious and metabolic etiologies imatinib is stopped which results in immediate improvement. The biopsy is consistent with drug-induced liver damage; the patient is started on oral prednisone and discharged. Unfortunately, our patient's liver function does not improve over the course of the next week and she is readmitted for hepatic and renal failure. During this second admission patient's condition continues to deteriorate with concomitant gastric bleeding, renal injury, and cellulitis. She ultimately chooses a palliative approach.