Less Invasive Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Is Safe and Feasible in Patients With Smaller Body Surface Area.

OBJECTIVE: Smaller body surface area (BSA) frequently precludes patients from left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. We sought to investigate the clinical outcomes in patients with small BSA undergoing less invasive LVAD implantation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 216 patients implanted with HeartMate 3 LVAD (Abbott, Chicago, IL) via less invasive surgery at our institution. Patients were dichotomized based on their preimplant BSA for comparison between small BSA (≤1.8 m2) and normal/large BSA (>1.8 m2). We analyzed patient perioperative characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: In our study, small BSA was found in 32 patients (14.8%), while 184 patients (85.2%) had normal/large BSA. Women were more prevalent in the small BSA group (50.0% vs 13.0%, P < 0.001). Preoperative and intraoperative data showed comparable results. Major complications and hospital length of stay did not differ by BSA group. Patients with smaller BSA had significantly decreased pump parameters at discharge, including LVAD flow (4.11 ± 0.49 vs 4.60 ± 0.54 L/min, P < 0.001) and pump speed (5,200 vs 5,400 rpm, P < 0.001). Survival to discharge and within 6 months after implantation were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest that less invasive HeartMate 3 implantation can be safely performed and demonstrates equivalent outcomes in patients with smaller body habitus. Randomized trials are required to confirm our data.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rapid Sequence Intubation in the Critically Ill Adult Patient.

RATIONALE: Controversies and practice variations exist related to the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management of the airway during rapid sequence intubation (RSI). OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations on pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic topics related to RSI. DESIGN: A guideline panel of 20 Society of Critical Care Medicine members with experience with RSI and emergency airway management met virtually at least monthly from the panel's inception in 2018 through 2020 and face-to-face at the 2020 Critical Care Congress. The guideline panel included pharmacists, physicians, a nurse practitioner, and a respiratory therapist with experience in emergency medicine, critical care medicine, anesthesiology, and prehospital medicine; consultation with a methodologist and librarian was available. A formal conflict of interest policy was followed and enforced throughout the guidelines-development process. METHODS: Panelists created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions and voted to select the most clinically relevant questions for inclusion in the guideline. Each question was assigned to a pair of panelists, who refined the PICO wording and reviewed the best available evidence using predetermined search terms. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was used throughout and recommendations of "strong" or "conditional" were made for each PICO question based on quality of evidence and panel consensus. Recommendations were provided when evidence was actionable; suggestions, when evidence was equivocal; and best practice statements, when the benefits of the intervention outweighed the risks, but direct evidence to support the intervention did not exist. RESULTS: From the original 35 proposed PICO questions, 10 were selected. The RSI guideline panel issued one recommendation (strong, low-quality evidence), seven suggestions (all conditional recommendations with moderate-, low-, or very low-quality evidence), and two best practice statements. The panel made two suggestions for a single PICO question and did not make any suggestions for one PICO question due to lack of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Using GRADE principles, the interdisciplinary panel found substantial agreement with respect to the evidence supporting recommendations for RSI. The panel also identified literature gaps that might be addressed by future research.

Left atrial appendage exclusion with less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this single-center, pilot, prospective, and historical control study is to evaluate safety and feasibility outcomes associated with left atrial appendage exclusion (LAAE) concomitant with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation via less invasive surgery (LIS) as a stroke prevention strategy. METHODS: A predefined number of 30 eligible subjects scheduled for LIS LVAD with LAAE were enrolled in the prospective arm between January 2020 and February 2021. Eligible retrospective LIS LVAD patients without LAAE were propensity-matched in a 1:1 ratio with the prospective arm subjects. The primary study objectives were to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the LAAE concomitant with LIS LVAD. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics of patients in the Non-LAAE and LAAE groups were similar. LAAE was successfully excluded in all prospective patients (100%). Primary safety endpoints of chest tube output within the first 24 postoperative hours, Reoperation for bleeding within 48 h, and index hospitalization mortality demonstrated comparable safety of LAAE versus Non-LAAE with LIS LVAD. Cox proportional hazard regression demonstrated that LAAE with LIS LVAD was associated with 37% and 49% reduction in the risk of stroke and disabling stroke, respectively (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Results from our pilot study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LAAE concomitant with LIS LVAD as a stroke prevention strategy. This is the first prospective study describing LAAE performed concomitantly to less invasive LVAD implantation. The efficacy of LAAE in long-term stroke prevention needs to be confirmed in future prospective randomized clinical trials.

Impact of surgical approach for left ventricular assist device implantation on postoperative invasive hemodynamics and right ventricular failure.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular failure (RVF) remains one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We sought to compare immediate postoperative invasive hemodynamics and the risk of RVF following two different surgical approaches: less invasive surgery (LIS) versus full sternotomy (FS). METHODS: The study population comprised all 231 patients who underwent implantation of a HeartMate 3 (Abbott) LVAD at our institution from 2015 to 2020, utilizing an LIS (n = 161; 70%) versus FS (n = 70; 30%) surgical approach. Outcomes included postoperative invasive hemodynamic parameters, vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), RVF during index hospitalization, and 6-month mortality. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. Multivariate analysis showed that LIS, compared with FS, was associated with the improved cardiac index (CI) at the sixth postoperative hour (p = .036) and similar CI at 24 h, maintained by lower VIS at both timepoints (p = .002). The LIS versus FS approach was also associated with a three-fold lower incidence of in-hospital severe RVF (8.7% vs. 28.6%, p < .001) and need for RVAD support (5.0% vs. 17.1%, p = .003), and with 68% reduction in the risk of 6-month mortality after LVAD implantation (Hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.13-0.78; p = .012). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that LIS, compared with FS, is associated with a more favorable hemodynamic profile, as indicated by similar hemodynamic parameters maintained by lower vasoactive-inotropic support during the acute postoperative period. These findings were followed by a reduction in the risk of severe RVF and 6-month mortality in the LIS group.

Cause of In-Hospital Death After Weaning from Venoarterial-Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

PURPOSE: A survival gap between weaning from venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and the hospital discharge has been consistently reported. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical features of patients who underwent successful VA-ECMO decannulation at our institution and to identify the major contributors responsible for adverse outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients supported with VA-ECMO in our institution between January 2013 and June 2020. Only patients that survived VA-ECMO and underwent successful decannulation were included and dichotomized based on survival to hospital discharge: non-survivors versus survivors. The primary study outcome was the cause of death after successful VA-ECMO decannulation. RESULTS: Of the 262 adult patients who underwent VA-ECMO decannulation, 72 (27.5%) patients did not survive to hospital discharge. Non-survivors were older (62 vs. 54 years, p < 0.001) and suffering from many pre-existing comorbidities. Pneumonia and sepsis were the most frequent infectious complication and almost twice as likely in non-survivors. Major causes of death were: cardiovascular (31.9%), infections (25.0%) and neurological (20.8%). The survival curve demonstrated that 51.4% of our patients died within 8 days after decannulation. Multivariate analysis identified older age, central venous cannulation, pulmonary bleeding and infection, dialysis after VA-ECMO, sepsis, and ischemic stroke (OR = 7.86, 95% CI: 2.76-2.43, p < 0.001) as factors significantly predisposing to patients' death. CONCLUSION: In our study, one-third of patients decannulated off VA-ECMO did not survive to hospital discharge due to end-stage heart failure, infections or neurological injury. The first 8 post-decannulation days were recognized as a critical period where thorough strategies to prevent acquired infections and cautious support of end-organ function should be warranted. Future large-scale trials are needed to confirm our results.

Study results suggest less invasive HeartMate 3 implantation is a safe and effective approach for obese patients.

BACKGROUND: Historically, obesity was considered a relative contraindication to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with less invasive surgery (LIS). The present study aimed to compare the outcomes of obese patients who underwent LVAD implantation through LIS with those who received full sternotomy (FS) implantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients implanted with HeartMate 3 LVAD in our institution between September 2015 and June 2020. Obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) were included and dichotomized based on surgical approach into the FS or LIS cohort. RESULTS: Of 231 implanted patients, 107 (46%) were obese and included in the study. FS was performed in 26 (24%) patients and LIS approach in 81 (76%) patients. Preoperative patient characteristics were similar between the cohorts. Postoperatively, patients in LIS cohort had less bleeding (p = 0.029), fewer transfusions (p = 0.042), shorter duration of inotropic support (p = 0.049), and decreased incidence of severe RV failure (11.1% vs 30.8%, p = 0.028). Survival to discharge for the obese population was 87.5% overall and did not differ based on an approach (91.4% LIS vs 76.9% FS, p = 0.079). More LIS patients were discharged home (60.0% vs 82.4%, p = 0.041) rather than to rehabilitation center. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that the LIS approach in obese patients is associated with fewer postoperative complications and a trend towards better short-term survival. These results suggest that less invasive LVAD implantation is a safe and effective approach for obese patients. Future prospective randomized trials are required to substantiate these results.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Patients Implanted with Left Ventricular Assist Device.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to develop and implement a comprehensive enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for patients implanted with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this article, we describe our approach to the development and phased implementation of the protocol. Additionally, we reviewed prospectively collected data for patients who underwent LVAD implantation at our institution from February 2019 to August 2020. To compare early outcomes in our patients before and after protocol implementation, we dichotomized patients into two 6-month cohorts (the pre-ERAS and ERAS cohorts) separated from each other by 6 months to allow for staff adoption of the protocol. Of the 115 LVAD implants, 38 patients were implanted in the pre-ERAS period and 46 patients in the ERAS period. Preoperatively, the patients` characteristics were similar between the cohorts. Postoperatively, we observed a decrease in bleeding (chest tube output of 1006 vs 647.5 mL, P < .001) and blood transfusions (fresh frozen plasma 31.6% vs 6.7%, P = .04; platelets 42.1% vs 8.7%, P = .001). Opioid prescription at discharge were 5-fold lower with the ERAS approach (P < .01). Furthermore, the number of patients discharged to a rehabilitation facility decreased significantly (20.0% vs 2.4%, P = .02). The index hospitalization length of stay and survival were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS for patients undergoing LVAD implantation is a novel, evidence-based, interdisciplinary approach to care with multiple potential benefits. In this article, we describe the details of the protocol and early positive changes in clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to evaluate benefits of an ERAS protocol in an LVAD population.Lay Summary: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is the implementation of standardized clinical pathways that ensures the use of best practices and decreased variation in perioperative care. Multidisciplinary teams work together on ERAS, thereby enhancing communication among health care silos. ERAS has been used for more than 30 years by other surgical services and has been shown to lead to a decreased length of stay, fewer complications, lower mortality, fewer readmissions, greater job satisfaction, and lower costs. Our goal was to translate these benefits to the perioperative care of complex patients with a left ventricular assist device. Early results suggest that this goal is possible; we have observed a decrease in transfusions, discharge on opioids, and discharge to a rehabilitation facility.

Push dose pressors: Experience in critically ill patients outside of the operating room.

PURPOSE: Evaluate push dose vasopressor (PDP) practice patterns, efficacy, and safety in critically ill patients. METHODS: Critically ill patients receiving phenylephrine or ephedrine PDP from November 2015-March 2017 were included. Patient demographics, medication administration details, vital signs pre- and post-administration, adverse effects, and medications errors were collected. Descriptive data are presented and comparisons were made with paired samples t-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi-squared analysis or Fisher's Exact Test as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients (155 PDP events) were included; mean age 64.5 ±â€¯13.3 years and 66.4% males, respiratory failure (39.8%) or sepsis (24.9%) admission diagnosis. The surgical intensive care unit (ICU) (44.5%) and medical ICU (33.6%) used PDPs most often, and during the peri-intubation period (57.3%) or for other transient hypotension (38.2%). Following PDP, mean systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and heart rate (HR) increased 32.5% (80 to 106 mmHg), 27.2% (48 to 61 mmHg), and 6.4% (93 to 99 bpm), respectively. There were 17 (11.6%) adverse events; most often related to excessive increases in BP or HR and one incidence of dysrhythmia. Thirteen patients (11.2%) had a dose related medication error (phenylephrine dose >200 µg or ephedrine dose >25 mg), nine (6.2%) received PDP with normal/elevated hemodynamics (systolic BP > 100 mmHg or HR > 160 bpm) and 15% while on a continuous infusion vasopressor. CONCLUSION: PDPs were used in a variety of patient diagnoses and for select indications. Overall, they were efficacious but associated with adverse drug events and medication errors.

Pitfalls in the Treatment of Sepsis.

Sepsis is a challenging, dynamic, pathophysiology requiring expertise in diagnosis and management. Controversy exists as to the most sensitive early indicators of sepsis and sepsis severity. Patients presenting to the emergency department often lack complete history or clinical data that would point to optimal management. Awareness of these potential knowledge gaps is important for the emergency provider managing the septic patient. Specific areas of management including the initiation and management of mechanical ventilation, the appropriate disposition of the patient, and consideration of transfer to higher levels of care are reviewed.