The effects of ischaemic conditioning on lung ischaemia-reperfusion injury.

Ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) encompasses the deleterious effects on cellular function and survival that result from the restoration of organ perfusion. Despite their unique tolerance to ischaemia and hypoxia, afforded by their dual (pulmonary and bronchial) circulation as well as direct oxygen diffusion from the airways, lungs are particularly susceptible to IRI (LIRI). LIRI may be observed in a variety of clinical settings, including lung transplantation, lung resections, cardiopulmonary bypass during cardiac surgery, aortic cross-clamping for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, as well as tourniquet application for orthopaedic operations. It is a diagnosis of exclusion, manifesting clinically as acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Ischaemic conditioning (IC) signifies the original paradigm of treating IRI. It entails the application of short, non-lethal ischemia and reperfusion manoeuvres to an organ, tissue, or arterial territory, which activates mechanisms that reduce IRI. Interestingly, there is accumulating experimental and preliminary clinical evidence that IC may ameliorate LIRI in various pathophysiological contexts. Considering the detrimental effects of LIRI, ranging from ALI following lung resections to primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after lung transplantation, the association of these entities with adverse outcomes, as well as the paucity of protective or therapeutic interventions, IC holds promise as a safe and effective strategy to protect the lung. This article aims to provide a narrative review of the existing experimental and clinical evidence regarding the effects of IC on LIRI and prompt further investigation to refine its clinical application.

The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on aortic valve surgical service: a single centre experience.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed an unprecedented burden on the provision of cardiac surgical services. The reallocation of workforce and resources necessitated the postponement of elective operations in this cohort of high-risk patients. We investigated the impact of this outbreak on the aortic valve surgery activity at a single two-site centre in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Data were extracted from the local surgical database, including the demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of patients operated on from March 2020 to May 2020 with only one of the two sites resuming operative activity and compared with the respective 2019 period. A similar comparison was conducted with the period between June 2020 and August 2020, when operative activity was restored at both institutional sites. The experience of centres world-wide was invoked to assess the efficiency of our services. RESULTS: There was an initial 38.2% reduction in the total number of operations with a 70% reduction in elective cases, compared with a 159% increase in urgent and emergency operations. The attendant surgical risk was significantly higher [median Euroscore II was 2.7 [1.9-5.2] in 2020 versus 2.1 [0.9-3.7] in 2019 (p = 0.005)] but neither 30-day survival nor freedom from major post-operative complications (re-sternotomy for bleeding/tamponade, transient ischemic attack/stroke, renal replacement therapy) was compromised (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). Recommencement of activity at both institutional sites conferred a surgical volume within 17% of the pre-COVID-19 era. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution managed to offer a considerable volume of aortic valve surgical activity over the first COVID-19 outbreak to a cohort of higher-risk patients, without compromising post-operative outcomes. A backlog of elective cases is expected to develop, the accommodation of which after surgical activity normalisation will be crucial to monitor.