Ventricular assist devices implantation: surgical assessment and technical strategies.

Along with the worldwide increase in continuous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) strategy adoption, more and more patients with demanding anatomical and clinical features are currently referred to heart failure (HF) departments for treatment. Thus surgeons have to deal, technically, with re-entry due to previous cardiac surgery procedures, porcelain aorta, peripheral vascular arterial disease, concomitant valvular or septal disease, biventricular failure. New surgical techniques and surgical tools have been developed to offer acceptable postoperative outcomes to all mechanical circulatory support recipients. Several less invasive and/or thoracotomic approaches for surgery combined with various LVAD inflow and outflow graft alternative anastomotic sites for system placement have been reported and described to solve complex clinical scenarios. Surgical techniques have been upgraded with further technical tips to preserve the native anatomy in case of re-entry for heart transplantation, myocardial recovery or device explant. The current continuous-flow miniaturized and intrapericardial devices provide versatility and technical advantages. However, the surgical planning requires a careful multidisciplinary evaluation which must be driven by a dedicated and well-trained Heart Failure team. Biventricular assist device (BVAD) implantation by adoption of the newer radial pumps might be a challenge. However, the results are encouraging thus remaining a valid option. This paper reviews and summarizes LVAD preoperative assessment and current surgical techniques for implantation.

Right ventricular assessment can improve prognostic value of Euroscore II.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicenter prospective study was to evaluate the prognostic weight of preoperative right ventricular assessment on early mortality in cardiac surgery. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective observational study performed by the Italian Group of Research for Outcome in Cardiac Surgery (GIROC) including 11 centers. From October 2017 to March 2019, out of 923 patients undergoing cardiac surgery, 28 patients with some missing data were excluded and 895 patients were enrolled in the study right ventricular dilatation was defined as a basal end-diastolic diameter >42 mm. The right ventricle (RV) function was assessed using the combination of three parameters: fractional area changing (FAC), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), and S'-wave using tissue Doppler imaging (TDI-S'); RV dysfunction was defined as the presence of at least two of the following cutoffs: FAC <35%, TAPSE <17 mm, and TDI S' <9.5 mm RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 624 (70%) showed normal RV, 92 (10%) isolated RV dilatation, 154 (17%) isolated RV dysfunction, and 25 (3%) both RV dilatation and dysfunction. Non-surviving patients showed a significantly higher rate of RV alteration at multivariable analysis, RV status was found to be an independent predictor for higher in-hospital mortality beside Euroscore II. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective multicenter observation study shows the importance to assess RV preoperatively and to include both RV function and dimension in a risk score model such as Euroscore II to implement its predictivity, since PH cannot always mirror the status of the right ventricle.

The Impact of EuroSCORE II Risk Factors on Prediction of Long-Term Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The European System for Cardiac Operation Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) II has not been tested yet for predicting long-term mortality. This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between EuroSCORE II and long-term mortality and to develop a new algorithm based on EuroSCORE II factors to predict long-term survival after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Complete data on 10,033 patients who underwent major cardiac surgery during a 7-year period were retrieved from three prospective institutional databases and linked with the Italian Tax Register Information System. Mortality at follow-up was analyzed with time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1 and 5 were, respectively, 95.0% ± 0.2% and 84.7% ± 0.4%. Both discrimination and calibration of EuroSCORE II decreased in the prediction of 1-year and 5-year mortality. Nonetheless, EuroSCORE II was confirmed to be an independent predictor of long-term mortality with a nonlinear trend. Several EuroSCORE II variables were independent risk factors for long-term mortality in a regression model, most of all very low ejection fraction (less than 20%), salvage operation, and dialysis. In the final model, isolated mitral valve surgery and isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery were associated with improved long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: The EuroSCORE II cannot be considered a direct estimator of long-term risk of death, as its performance fades for mortality at follow-up longer than 30 days. Nonetheless, it is nonlinearly associated with long-term mortality, and most of its variables are risk factors for long-term mortality. Hence, they can be used in a different algorithm to stratify the risk of long-term mortality after surgery.

In-hospital mortality risk assessment in elective and non-elective cardiac surgery: a comparison between EuroSCORE II and age, creatinine, ejection fraction score.

OBJECTIVES: Age, creatinine, ejection fraction (ACEF) score is a simplified algorithm for prediction of mortality after elective cardiac surgery. Although mainly conceived for elective cardiac surgery, no information is available on its performance in non-elective surgery and on comparison with the new EuroSCORE II. This study was undertaken to compare the performance of ACEF score and EuroSCORE II within classes of urgency. METHODS: Complete data on 13 871 consecutive patients who underwent major cardiac surgery in a 6-year period were retrieved from three prospective institutional databases. Discriminatory power was assessed using the c-index and h with Delong, bootstrap and Venkatraman methods. Calibration was evaluated with calibration curves and associated statistics. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate was 2.5%. The discriminatory power of ACEF score within elective and non-elective surgery was similar (area under the curve (AUC) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.74 and AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.62-0.73, respectively) but significantly lower than that of EuroSCORE II (AUC 0.80, 95% CI 0.77-0.83 for elective surgery; AUC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.85 for non-elective surgery). The calibration patterns were different in the two subgroups, but the summary statistics underscored a miscalibration in both of them (U-statistic and Spiegelhalter Z-test P-values <0.05). Even the calibration of EuroSCORE II was insufficient, although it was demonstrated to be well calibrated in the first tertile of predicted risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the performance of ACEF score in predicting in-hospital mortality in elective and non-elective cardiac surgery is comparable. Nonetheless, it is not as satisfactory as the new EuroSCORE II, as its discrimination is significantly lower and it is also miscalibrated.