A two-circuit strategy for intraoperative extracorporeal support during single lung transplantation in a patient bridged with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is increasingly used as a bridging strategy in decompensating patients awaiting lung transplantation. Various approaches for continuing support intraoperatively have been previously described. A two-circuit strategy that uses the in situ venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit supplemented with peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass allows for diversion of native cardiac output away from the transplanted lung as well as seamless continuation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation postoperatively.

Recombinant activated factor VII for hemostasis in patients undergoing complex ascending aortic surgery: A single-center, single-surgeon retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Use of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) to achieve hemostasis during cardiac surgery continues to be debated, as support for its efficacy and safety has not been consistent. We examined our experience with rFVIIa for achieving hemostasis in high-risk patients undergoing complex ascending aortic surgery. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent complex ascending aortic surgery performed by a single surgeon (C. K. R.) from August 2014 to February 2019. Outcomes of patients who received rFVIIa were compared with those who did not. RESULTS: Of 59 consecutive patients, 20 patients (33.9%) received rFVIIa, whereas 39 (66.1%) did not. Median dose was 45.4 mcg/kg. rFVIIa was administered intraoperatively to 95% of patients who received it. Most patients underwent combined aortic valve, ascending aorta, and aortic arch surgery (80.0% vs. 64.1%, p = .52). Patients receiving rFVIIa had longer mean cross clamp times (212 vs. 173 min, p = .03) and received a greater median number of intraoperative blood products (18.5 vs. 12.0, p < .001). The number of patients who needed postoperative products (75.0% vs. 60.5%, p = .39), the median number of blood products transfused postoperatively (2 vs. 2, p = .40), and chest tube output (1138 vs. 805 ml, p = .17) were similar between groups. In-hospital mortality was similar between groups (10.0% vs. 10.3%, p = 1.00). Incidences of postoperative stroke (10.0% vs. 13.5%, p = 1.00) and thromboembolic events (10.0% vs. 13.5%, p = 1.00) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of rFVIIa intraoperatively for refractory bleeding during complex ascending aortic surgery provided hemostasis without greater in-hospital mortality or a higher risk of stroke and thromboembolic events.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Patients Requiring a Permanent Pacemaker After Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The need for permanent pacemaker implantation (PCM) following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is uncommon but can lead to increased hospital resource utilization. Using nationwide data, we sought to (1) identify hospital, patient, and procedure-level risk factors for PCM after SAVR and (2) determine incremental resource utilization. METHODS: We identified 659,692 patients from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database who underwent SAVR with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), mitral valvuloplasty (MVr), or mitral valve replacement (MVR) between 1998 and 2009. Patients with pre-existing pacemakers, a concomitant Maze procedure, or endocarditis were excluded. Multivariable regression analysis and propensity matching were used for comparisons of outcomes and costs. RESULTS: Overall prevalence of PCM was 5.1% (n = 34,020; SAVR alone, 4.8%; SAVR + CABG, 4.6%; SAVR + MVr, 7.7%; SAVR + MVR, 10%). Important risk factors for PCM after SAVR were coexisting comorbidities, older age, and addition of mitral valve surgery. Hospital volume and teaching status, location, race, and sex were not associated with PCM. Among matched pairs, patients requiring PCM had lower in-hospital mortality (3.1% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001) but longer median length of stay (12 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001) and higher hospital costs ($50,000 vs. $37,000, p < 0.001), and they were less likely to be discharged home (33% vs. 36%, p < 0.001). Factors associated with later PCM (postoperative day ≥6) included SAVR + MVR, female sex, fewer comorbidities, northeastern region, and higher hospital volume. Median hospital costs were greater ($57,000 vs. $48,000, p < 0.001) among patients whose pacemakers were implanted later. CONCLUSIONS: PCM following SAVR is associated with lower hospital mortality, but increased cost and length of stay. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12769 (J Card Surg 2016;31:476-485).

Levosimendan Reduces Mortality in Adults with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Levosimendan is implemented in patients with low cardiac output after cardiac surgery. However, the strength of evidence is limited by randomized controlled trials enrolling a small number of patients. Hence we have conducted a systematic review to determine the role of levosimendan in adult cardiac surgery. METHODS: PUBMED, WoS, Cochrane database, and SCOPUS were systematically queried to identify original English language peer-reviewed literature (inception-October 2014) comparing clinical results of adult cardiac surgery between levosimendan and control. Pooled odds ratio (OR) was calculated using the Peto method; p < 0.05 is significant; results are presented within 95% confidence intervals. Continuous data was compared using standardized mean difference/mean difference. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the analysis. Levosimendan reduced early mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (5.5% vs. 9.1%) (OR 0.48 [0.23-0.76]; p = 0.004). This result was confirmed using sensitivity analysis. Postoperative acute renal failure was lower with levosimendan therapy (7.4% vs. 11.5%). Intensive care unit stay was shorter in the levosimendan cohort comparable in both groups (standardized mean difference -0.31 [-0.53, -0.09]; p = 0.006; I(2) = 33.6%). Levosimendan-treated patients stayed 1.01 (1.61-0.42) days shorter when compared to control (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that Levosimendan improves clinical outcomes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiac surgery. Results of the ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial are awaited to provide more conclusive evidence regarding the benefit of this drug.