ABSTRACT
Aims: Many historical and recent reports showed that post-infarction ventricular septal rupture (VSR) represents a life-threatening condition and the strategy to optimally manage it remains undefined. Therefore, disparate treatment policies among different centres with variable results are often described. We analysed data from European centres to capture the current clinical practice in VSR management. Methods and results: Thirty-nine centres belonging to eight European countries participated in a survey, filling a digital form of 38 questions from April to October 2022, to collect information about all the aspects of VSR treatment. Most centres encounter 1-5 VSR cases/year. Surgery remains the treatment of choice over percutaneous closure (71.8% vs. 28.2%). A delayed repair represents the preferred approach (87.2%). Haemodynamic conditions influence the management in almost all centres, although some try to achieve patients stabilization and delayed surgery even in cardiogenic shock. Although 33.3% of centres do not perform coronarography in unstable patients, revascularization approaches are widely variable. Most centres adopt mechanical circulatory support (MCS), mostly extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, especially pre-operatively to stabilize patients and achieve delayed repair. Post-operatively, such MCS are more often adopted in patients with ventricular dysfunction. Conclusion: In real-life, delayed surgery, regardless of the haemodynamic conditions, is the preferred strategy for VSR management in Europe. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is becoming the most frequently adopted MCS as bridge-to-operation. This survey provides a useful background to develop dedicated, prospective studies to strengthen the current evidence on VSR treatment and to help improving its currently unsatisfactory outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Despite the efforts made to improve the care of cardiogenic shock (CS) patients, including the development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), the prognosis of these patients continues to be poor. In this context, CS code initiatives arise, based on providing adequate, rapid, and quality care to these patients. In this multidisciplinary document we try to justify the need to implement the SC code, defining its structure/organization, activation criteria, patient flow according to care level, and quality indicators. Our specific purposes are: a) to present the peculiarities of this condition and the lessons of infarction code and previous experiences in CS; b) to detail the structure of the teams, their logistics and the bases for the management of these patients, the choice of the type of MCS, and the moment of its implantation, and c) to address challenges to SC code implementation, including the uniqueness of the pediatric SC code. There is an urgent need to develop protocolized, multidisciplinary, and centralized care in hospitals with a large volume and experience that will minimize inequity in access to the MCS and improve the survival of these patients. Only institutional and structural support from the different administrations will allow optimizing care for CS.
