Patient and Management Variables Associated With Survival After Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Adults: The PELS-1 Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been increasingly used for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, but without a concomitant reduction in observed in-hospital mortality. Long-term outcomes are unknown. This study describes patients' characteristics, in-hospital outcome, and 10-year survival after postcardiotomy ECMO. Variables associated with in-hospital and postdischarge mortality are investigated and reported. Methods and Results The retrospective international multicenter observational PELS-1 (Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Support) study includes data on adults requiring ECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock between 2000 and 2020 from 34 centers. Variables associated with mortality were estimated preoperatively, intraoperatively, during ECMO, and after the occurrence of any complications, and then analyzed at different time points during a patient's clinical course, through mixed Cox proportional hazards models containing fixed and random effects. Follow-up was established by institutional chart review or contacting patients. This analysis included 2058 patients (59% were men; median [interquartile range] age, 65.0 [55.0-72.0] years). In-hospital mortality was 60.5%. Independent variables associated with in-hospital mortality were age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01-1.02]) and preoperative cardiac arrest (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.15-1.73]). In the subgroup of hospital survivors, the overall 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 89.5% (95% CI, 87.0%-92.0%), 85.4% (95% CI, 82.5%-88.3%), 76.4% (95% CI, 72.5%-80.5%), and 65.9% (95% CI, 60.3%-72.0%), respectively. Variables associated with postdischarge mortality included older age, atrial fibrillation, emergency surgery, type of surgery, postoperative acute kidney injury, and postoperative septic shock. Conclusions In adults, in-hospital mortality after postcardiotomy ECMO remains high; however, two-thirds of those who are discharged from hospital survive up to 10 years. Patient selection, intraoperative decisions, and ECMO management remain key variables associated with survival in this cohort. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03857217.

Aortic valve disease with severe ventricular dysfunction: stentless valve for better recovery.

BACKGROUND: Stentless bioprostheses and homografts show better hemodynamic profiles compared with conventional stented bioprostheses and mechanical valves. Few data are available on stentless aortic valve implantation for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the potential benefits of stentless aortic valve implantation for patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35%. METHODS: From November 1988 through March 2000, 53 patients (45 men and 8 women, aged 64.2 +/- 15.2 years) with a LVEF < or = 35% (mean EF, 28.7 +/- 5.4%) underwent isolated, primary aortic valve replacement for chronic aortic valve disease. Twenty patients received stentless aortic valves and 33 patients received conventional stented bioprostheses and mechanical valves. Predictive factors for LVEF recovery at echocardiographic follow-up (36.2 +/- 32.1 months) were analyzed by simple and multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in early and late mortality. Stentless aortic valve implantation required a longer aortic cross-clamp time (p = 0.037). The stentless aortic valve group showed a better LVEF recovery (p = 0.016). Stentless aortic valves had a larger indexed effective orifice area compared with conventional stented bioprostheses and mechanical valves (p < 0.0001). A smaller indexed effective orifice area (p = 0.0008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p = 0.015), and implantation of a conventional stented bioprosthesis or mechanical valve (p = 0.016) were related to reduced LVEF recovery by univariate analysis. A larger indexed effective orifice area (p = 0.024) was an independent predictive factor for a better LVEF recovery by multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Stentless aortic valve implantation for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, even if technically more demanding, is a safe procedure that warrants a larger indexed effective orifice area leading to an enhanced LVEF recovery.