Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in the treatment of infarct-related cardiogenic shock despite a lack of evidence regarding its effect on mortality. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization was planned were randomly assigned to receive early ECLS plus usual medical treatment (ECLS group) or usual medical treatment alone (control group). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 30 days. Safety outcomes included bleeding, stroke, and peripheral vascular complications warranting interventional or surgical therapy. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients underwent randomization, and 417 patients were included in final analyses. At 30 days, death from any cause had occurred in 100 of 209 patients (47.8%) in the ECLS group and in 102 of 208 patients (49.0%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.19; P = 0.81). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 7 days (interquartile range, 4 to 12) in the ECLS group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9) in the control group (median difference, 1 day; 95% CI, 0 to 2). The safety outcome consisting of moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 23.4% of the patients in the ECLS group and in 9.6% of those in the control group (relative risk, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.50 to 3.95); peripheral vascular complications warranting intervention occurred in 11.0% and 3.8%, respectively (relative risk, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31 to 6.25). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with planned early revascularization, the risk of death from any cause at the 30-day follow-up was not lower among the patients who received ECLS therapy than among those who received medical therapy alone. (Funded by the Else Kröner Fresenius Foundation and others; ECLS-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03637205.).

Current status of antithrombotic therapy and in-hospital outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about current patterns of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice in Germany. METHODS: The RIVA-PCI is a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study with follow-up until hospital discharge including consecutive patients with AF undergoing PCI. RESULTS: Between January 2018 and March 2020, 1636 patients (elective in 52.6%, non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome [NSTE-ACS] in 39.3%, ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 8.2%) from 51 German hospitals were enrolled in the study. After PCI a dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) consisting of OAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor was given to 66.0%, triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) to 26.0%, dual antiplatelet therapy to 5.5%, and a mono-therapy to 2.5% of the patients. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were given to 82.4% and vitamin K antagonists to 11.5% of the patients. In-hospital events included death in 12 cases (0.7%), myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke in four (0.2%) patients each, while 2.8% of patients had bleeding complications. The recommended durations for DAT or TAT at discharge were 1 month (1.5%), 3 months (2.1%), 6 months (43.1%), and 12 months (45.6%), with a 6-month course of DAT (47.7%) most often recommended after elective PCI and a 12-month course of DAT (40.1%) after ACS. CONCLUSION: The preferred therapy after PCI in patients with AF is DAT with a NOAC and clopidogrel. In-hospital ischemic and bleeding events were rare. The recommended durations for combination therapy vary considerably.

[Recommendations of the S3 Guideline "Use of Extracorporeal Circulation (ECLS/ ECMO) for Cardiac and Circulatory Failure" of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany]. / Empfehlungen der S3-Leitlinie (AWMF) "Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen".

In recent years, the use of mechanical support for patients with cardiac or circulatory failure has continuously increased, leading to 3,000 ECLS/ECMO (extracorporeal life support/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) implantations annually in Germany. Due to the lack of guidelines, there is an urgent need for evidence-based recommendations addressing the central aspects of ECLS/ECMO therapy. In July 2015, the generation of a guideline level S3 according to the standards of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) was announced by the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS). In a well-structured consensus process, involving experts from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, delegated by 16 scientific societies and the patients' representation, the guideline "Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure" was created under guidance of the GSTCVS, and published in February 2021. The guideline focuses on clinical aspects of initiation, continuation, weaning and aftercare, herein also addressing structural and economic issues. This article presents an overview on the methodology as well as the final recommendations.

Extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock - Design and rationale of the ECLS-SHOCK trial.

BACKGROUND: In acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock the use of mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial and data from randomized clinical trials are very limited. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) - venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - provides the strongest hemodynamic support in addition to oxygenation. However, despite increasing use it has not yet been properly investigated in randomized trials. Therefore, a prospective randomized adequately powered clinical trial is warranted. STUDY DESIGN: The ECLS-SHOCK trial is a 420-patient controlled, international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. It is designed to compare whether treatment with ECLS in addition to early revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or alternatively coronary artery bypass grafting and optimal medical treatment is beneficial in comparison to no-ECLS in patients with severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoint of ECLS-SHOCK is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters will serve as surrogate endpoints for prognosis. Furthermore, a longer follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed including quality of life assessment. Safety endpoints include peripheral ischemic vascular complications, bleeding and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The ECLS-SHOCK trial will address essential questions of efficacy and safety of ECLS in addition to early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

[Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure : Short version of the S3 guideline]. / Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen : Kurzversion der AWMF-S3-Leitlinie.

In Germany, a remarkable increase regarding the usage of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) systems has been observed in recent years with approximately 3000 ECLS/ECMO implantations annually since 2015. Despite the widespread use of ECLS/ECMO, evidence-based recommendations or guidelines are still lacking regarding indications, contraindications, limitations and management of ECMO/ECLS patients. Therefore in 2015, the German Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS) registered the multidisciplinary S3 guideline "Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure" to develop evidence-based recommendations for ECMO/ECLS systems according to the requirements of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). Although the clinical application of ECMO/ECLS represents the main focus, the presented guideline also addresses structural and economic issues. Experts from 17 German, Austrian and Swiss scientific societies and a patients' organization, guided by the GSTCVS, completed the project in February 2021. In this report, we present a summary of the methodological concept and tables displaying the recommendations for each chapter of the guideline.

Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Long-Term 6-Year Outcome of the Randomized IABP-SHOCK II Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in cardiogenic shock is still a subject of intense debate despite the neutral results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) with subsequent downgrading in international guidelines. So far, randomized data on the impact of IABP on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction are lacking. Furthermore, only limited evidence is available on general long-term outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated by contemporary practice. METHODS: The IABP-SHOCK II trial is a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Between 2009 and 2012, 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction undergoing early revascularization were randomized to IABP versus control. RESULTS: Long-term follow-up was performed 6.2 years (interquartile range 5.6-6.7) after initial randomization. Follow-up was completed for 591 of 600 patients (98.5%). Mortality was not different between the IABP and the control group (66.3% versus 67.0%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.11; P=0.98). There were also no differences in recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, or rehospitalization for cardiac reasons (all P>0.05). Survivors' quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol 5D questionnaire and the New York Heart Association class did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: IABP has no effect on all-cause mortality at 6-year long-term follow-up. Mortality is still very high, with two thirds of patients with cardiogenic shock dying despite contemporary treatment with revascularization therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00491036.

Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: In this randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery) and to receive the best available medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Safety assessments included major bleeding, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in the analysis of the primary end point. At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary end points or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function. The IABP group and the control group did not differ significantly with respect to the rates of major bleeding (3.3% and 4.4%, respectively; P=0.51), peripheral ischemic complications (4.3% and 3.4%, P=0.53), sepsis (15.7% and 20.5%, P=0.15), and stroke (0.7% and 1.7%, P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned. (Funded by the German Research Foundation and others; IABP-SHOCK II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00491036.).

Implementing an Innovative Cardiac Assist System in a Nonuniversity Hospital--Feasibility, Complications, and First Results.

To evaluate the feasibility of implementing a cardiac assist system in a nonuniversity hospital we analyzed 18 consecutive patients treated with venoarterial membrane oxygenation. The system was used electively in 5/18 (27.8%) patients during high-risk interventions. Thirteen patients (72.2%) were treated in emergency situations. The extracorporal system could be initiated successfully in all patients. Periprocedural complications were hemolysis in 3/18 (16.7%), disseminated intravascular coagulation in 2/18 (11.1%), cerebral ischemia in 1/18 (5.6%), and local infection in 2/18 (11.1%) patients. None of these led to a discontinuation of the therapy. All electively treated patients were successfully weaned from the extracorporeal system. In 9/13 (69.2%) emergency patients the system was removed successfully. The 60-day survival rate of the emergency patients was 53.8% (7/13). Our experience confirms that an innovative extracorporeal circulatory support system can be implemented in a nonuniversity hospital at a tolerable risk and a low complication and high procedural success rate.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: In current international guidelines the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use has been downgraded in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction on the basis of registry data. In the largest randomised trial (IABP-SHOCK II), IABP support did not reduce 30 day mortality compared with control. However, previous trials in cardiogenic shock showed a mortality benefit only at extended follow-up. The present analysis therefore reports 6 and 12 month results. METHODS: The IABP-SHOCK II trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who were undergoing early revascularisation and optimum medical therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to IABP versus control via a central web-based system. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality, but 6 and 12 month follow-up was done in addition to quality-of-life assessment for all survivors with the Euroqol-5D questionnaire. A masked central committee adjudicated clinical outcomes. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036. FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2009, and March 3, 2012, 600 patients were assigned to IABP (n=301) or control (n=299). Of 595 patients completing 12 month follow-up, 155 (52%) of 299 patients in the IABP group and 152 (51%) of 296 patients in the control group had died (relative risk [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·86-1·18, p=0·91). There were no significant differences in reinfarction (RR 2·60, 95% CI 0·95-7·10, p=0·05), recurrent revascularisation (0·91, 0·58-1·41, p=0·77), or stroke (1·50, 0·25-8·84, p=1·00). For survivors, quality-of-life measures including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression did not differ significantly between study groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients undergoing early revascularisation for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, IABP did not reduce 12 month all-cause mortality. FUNDING: German Research Foundation; German Heart Research Foundation; German Cardiac Society; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte; University of Leipzig--Heart Centre; Maquet Cardiopulmonary; Teleflex Medical.

Impact of Access Site on Periprocedural Bleeding and Cerebral and Coronary Events in High-Bleeding-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Findings from the RIVA-PCI Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The preference for using transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) in patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is based on evidence suggesting that TRA is associated with less bleeding and fewer vascular complications, shorter hospital stays, improved quality of life, and a potential beneficial effect on mortality. We have limited study data comparing the two access routes in a patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PCI, who have a particular increased risk of bleeding, while AF itself is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. METHODS: Using data from the RIVA-PCI registry, which includes patients with AF undergoing PCI, we analyzed a high-bleeding-risk (HBR) cohort. These patients were predominantly on oral anticoagulants (OAC) for AF, and the PCI was performed via radial or femoral access. Endpoints examined were in-hospital bleeding (BARC 2-5), cerebral events (TIA, hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke) and coronary events (stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction). RESULTS: Out of 1636 patients, 854 (52.2%) underwent TFA, while 782 (47.8%) underwent the procedure via TRA, including nine patients with brachial artery puncture. The mean age was 75.5 years. Groups were similar in terms of age, sex distribution, AF type, cardiovascular history, risk factors, and comorbidities, except for a higher incidence of previous bypass surgeries, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) < 60 ml/min in the TFA group. No clinically relevant differences in antithrombotic therapy and combinations were present at the time of PCI. However, upon discharge, transradial PCI patients had a higher rate of triple therapy, while dual therapy was preferred after transfemoral procedures. Radial access was more frequently chosen for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris (UAP) cases (NSTEMI 26.6% vs. 17.0%, p < 0.0001; UAP 21.5% vs. 14.5%, p < 0.001), while femoral access was more common for elective PCI (60.3% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.0001). No differences were observed for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Both groups had similar rates of cerebral events (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93), but the TFA group had a higher incidence of bleeding (BARC 2-5) (4.2% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.01), mainly driven by BARC 3 bleeding (1.5% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05). No significant differences were found for stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction (TFA 0.2% vs. TRA 0.3%, p = 0.93; TFA 0.4% vs. TRA 0.1%, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: In HBR patients with AF undergoing PCI for acute or chronic coronary syndrome, the use of TRA might be associated with a decrease in in-hospital bleeding, while not increasing the risk of embolic or ischemic events compared to femoral access. Further studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

[ECMO support during the first two waves of the corona pandemic-a survey of high case volume centers in Germany]. / ECMO-Unterstützung während der ersten 2 Wellen der Coronapandemie ­ eine Umfrage an Zentren mit hohen Fallzahlen in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: At the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, concerns were raised about sufficiency of available intensive care resources. In many places, routine interventions were postponed and criteria for the allocation of scarce resources were formulated. In Germany, some hospitals were at times seriously burdened during the course of the pandemic. Intensive care units in particular experienced a shortage of resources, which may have led to a restriction of services and a stricter indication setting for resource-intensive measures such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The aim of this work is to provide an overview of how these pressures were managed at large ECMO centers in Germany. METHODS: One representative of each major ECMO referral center in Germany was invited to participate in an online survey in spring 2021. RESULTS: Of 34 invitations that were sent out, the survey was answered by 23 participants. In all centers, routine procedures were postponed during the pandemic. Half of the centers increased the number of beds on which ECMO procedures could be offered. Nevertheless, in one-third of the centers, the start of at least one ECMO support was delayed because of a feared resource shortage. In 17% of centers, at least one patient was denied ECMO that he or she would have most likely received under prepandemic conditions. CONCLUSION: The results of this online survey indicate that the experienced pressures and resource constraints led some centers to be cautious about ECMO indications.

Rivaroxaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Clinical Practice.

Little is known about the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice. We therefore conducted a prospective observational study to determine the rate of ischemic, embolic, and bleeding events in patients with AF and PCI treated with rivaroxaban in a real-world experience. The RIVA-PCI ("rivaroxaban in patients with AF who underwent PCI") (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03315650) is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter study with a follow-up until 14 months, including patients with AF who underwent PCI discharged with rivaroxaban. Between January 2018 and March 2020, 700 patients with PCI treated with rivaroxaban (elective in 50.1%, non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome 43.0%, ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 6.9%) were enrolled at 51 German hospitals. After PCI, a dual antithrombotic therapy consisting of rivaroxaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor was administered in 70.7% and triple antithrombotic therapy in 27.9%, respectively. Follow-up information could be obtained in 695 patients (99.3%). Rivaroxaban has been stopped prematurely in 21.6% of patients. Clinical events under rivaroxaban during the 14-month follow-up compared with those observed in the PIONEER-AF PCI trial included cardiovascular death (2.0% % vs 2.0%), myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 3.0%), stent thrombosis (0.2% vs 0.8%), stroke (1.3% vs 1.3%), International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major (4.2% vs 3.9%), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding (15.3% vs 12.9%). Therefore, in this real-world experience, rivaroxaban in patients with AF who underwent PCI is associated with ischemic and bleeding event rates comparable with those observed in the randomized PIONEER-AF PCI trial.

Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial.

BACKGROUND: In current guidelines, intraaortic balloon pumping (IABP) is considered a class 1 indication in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is mainly based on retrospective or prospective registries with a lack of randomized clinical trials. Therefore, IABP is currently only used in 20% to 40% of cardiogenic shock cases. The hypothesis of this trial is that IABP in addition to early revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will improve clinical outcome of patients in cardiogenic shock. STUDY DESIGN: The IABP-SHOCK II study is a 600-patient, prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial. The study is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of IABP versus optimal medical therapy on the background of early revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to 1 of the 2 treatments. The primary efficacy end point of IABP-SHOCK II is 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome measures, such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters, will serve as surrogate end points for prognosis. Furthermore, an intermediate and long-term follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed. Safety will be assessed, by the GUSTO bleeding definition, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The IABP-SHOCK II trial addresses important questions regarding the efficacy and safety of IABP in addition to early revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.

Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure -A clinical practice Guideline Level 3.

Aims Worldwide applications of extracorporeal circulation for mechanical support in cardiac and circulatory failure, which are referred to as extracorporeal life support (ECLS) or veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va-ECMO), have dramatically increased over the past decade. In spite of the expanding use and the immense medical as well as socio-economic impact of this therapeutic approach, there has been a lack of interdisciplinary recommendations considering the best available evidence for ECLS treatment. Methods and Results In a multiprofessional, interdisciplinary scientific effort of all scientific societies involved in the treatment of patients with acute cardiac and circulatory failure, the first evidence- and expert consensus-based guideline (level S3) on ECLS/ECMO therapy was developed in a structured approach under regulations of the AWMF (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany) and under use of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. This article presents all recommendations created by the expert panel, addressing a multitude of aspects for ECLS initiation, continuation, weaning and aftercare as well as structural and personnel requirements. Conclusions This first evidence- and expert consensus-based guideline (level S3) on ECLS/ECMO therapy should be used to apply the best available care nationwide. Beyond clinical practice advice, remaining important research aspects for future scientific efforts are formulated.

[Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure : Short version of the S3 guideline]. / Einsatz der extrakorporalen Zirkulation (ECLS/ECMO) bei Herz- und Kreislaufversagen : Kurzversion der AWMF-S3-Leitlinie.

In Germany, a remarkable increase regarding the usage of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) systems has been observed in recent years with approximately 3000 ECLS/ECMO implantations annually since 2015. Despite the widespread use of ECLS/ECMO, evidence-based recommendations or guidelines are still lacking regarding indications, contraindications, limitations and management of ECMO/ECLS patients. Therefore in 2015, the German Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS) registered the multidisciplinary S3 guideline "Use of extracorporeal circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for cardiac and circulatory failure" to develop evidence-based recommendations for ECMO/ECLS systems according to the requirements of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). Although the clinical application of ECMO/ECLS represents the main focus, the presented guideline also addresses structural and economic issues. Experts from 17 German, Austrian and Swiss scientific societies and a patients' organization, guided by the GSTCVS, completed the project in February 2021. In this report, we present a summary of the methodological concept and tables displaying the recommendations for each chapter of the guideline.

Arterial Lactate in Cardiogenic Shock: Prognostic Value of Clearance Versus Single Values.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare single lactate values at admission (L1) and after 8 h (L2) with lactate clearance (LC) for mortality prediction in cardiogenic shock (CS). BACKGROUND: Early estimation of prognosis in CS complicating acute myocardial infarction is crucial for tailored treatment selection. Arterial lactate is the most widely used point-of-care parameter in CS. In septic shock, lactate reduction over time-LC-has been extensively investigated. However, in CS, only limited data exist, and the prognostic value of LC is unknown. METHODS: This study is a subanalysis of the IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial and the corresponding registry. Lactate levels were prospectively collected. All-cause mortality at 30 days was assessed as primary endpoint. RESULTS: For 671 of 783 (85.7%) patients, L1 and L2 values were available. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (L1: 0.69; L2: 0.76; LC: 0.59) showed no difference between L1 and LC (p = 0.20). In contrast, L2 was a significantly better predictive parameter than L1 or LC (p < 0.001 for both). In multivariable stepwise Cox regression analysis, L2 ≥3.1 mmol/l (best cutoff value by Youden index) and LC <-3.45%/h remained independently predictive for time to death (p < 0.001 for both), with L2 showing the highest chi-square test score (42.1) and hazard ratio (2.89; 95% confidence interval: 2.10 to 3.97). CONCLUSIONS: Arterial lactate after 8 h is superior in mortality prediction in comparison with baseline lactate and LC. A cutoff value of 3.1 mmol/l for lactate after 8 h showed the best discrimination for assessing early prognosis in CS and may serve as new treatment goal. (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II [IABP-SHOCK II]; NCT00491036).

[Atrial fibrillation]. / Vorhofflimmern.

Atrial fibrillation is the arrhythmia that most frequently leads to hospital admission. As prevalence of atrial fibrillation increases with age, its epidemiological relevance will increase due to the well-known changes in life expectancy. In the presence of atrial fibrillation the cardiovascular mortality and the risk for a stroke are considerably elevated. Interventional treatment, such as catheter ablation or special pacemaker algorithms, have been improved extensively in the last years as a therapeutic option. Nevertheless drug therapy is still the first choice of treating atrial fibrillation.