Early and late outcomes after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass vs. full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

Objectives: Minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) is a less-invasive alternative to full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass (FS-OPCAB) revascularization of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Some studies suggested that MIDCAB is associated with a greater risk of graft occlusion and repeat revascularization than FS-OPCAB LIMA-to-LAD grafting. Data comparing MIDCAB to FS-OPCAB with regard to long-term follow-up is scarce. We compared short- and long-term results of MIDCAB vs. FS-OPCAB revascularization over a maximum follow-up period of 10 years. Patients and methods: From December 2009 to June 2020, 388 elective patients were included in our retrospective study. 229 underwent MIDCAB, and 159 underwent FS-OPCAB LIMA-to-LAD grafting. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for selection bias and to estimate treatment effects on short- and long-term outcomes. IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates by study group were calculated for all-cause mortality, stroke, the risk of repeat revascularization and myocardial infarction up to a maximum follow-up of 10 years. Results: MIDCAB patients had less rethoracotomies (n = 13/3.6% vs. n = 30/8.0%, p = 0.012), fewer transfusions (0.93 units ± 1.83 vs. 1.61 units ± 2.52, p < 0.001), shorter mechanical ventilation time (7.6 ± 4.7 h vs. 12.1 ± 26.4 h, p = 0.005), and needed less hemofiltration (n = 0/0% vs. n = 8/2.4%, p = 0.004). Thirty-day mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (n = 0/0% vs. n = 3/0.8%, p = 0.25). Long-term outcomes did not differ significantly between study groups. In the FS-OPCAB group, the probability of survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 98.4%, 87.8%, and 71.7%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 98.4%, 87.7%, and 68.7%, respectively (RR1.24, CI0.87-1.86, p = 0.7). In the FS group, the freedom from stroke at 1, 5, and 10 years was 97.0%, 93.0%, and 93.0%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 98.5%, 96.9%, and 94.3%, respectively (RR0.52, CI0.25-1.09, p = 0.06). Freedom from repeat revascularization at 1, 5, and 10 years in the FS-OPCAB group was 92.2%, 84.7%, and 79.5%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 94.8%, 90.2%, and 81.7%, respectively (RR0.73, CI0.47-1.16, p = 0.22). Conclusion: MIDCAB is a safe and efficacious technique and offers comparable long-term results regarding mortality, stroke, repeat revascularization, and freedom from myocardial infarction when compared to FS-OPCAB.

Left Ventricular Unloading in Patients on Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: Prophylactic Versus Bail-Out Strategy.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of prophylactic left ventricular (LV) unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in selected patients at risk of developing LV distension remains unclear. METHODS: We enrolled 136 patients treated with Impella pump decompression during VA-ECMO therapy for refractory cardiogenic shock. Patients were stratified by specific indication for LV unloading in the prophylactic vs. bail-out group. The bail-out unloading strategy was utilized to treat LV distension in VA-ECMO afterload-associated complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause 30-day mortality after VA-ECMO implantation. The secondary endpoint was successful myocardial recovery, transition to durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or heart transplantation. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, prophylactic unloading was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality risk (risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.62, and p < 0.001) and a higher probability of myocardial recovery (risk ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.48-4.54, and p = 0.001) compared with the bail-out strategy. Heart transplantation or durable MCS did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic unloading compared with the bail-out strategy may improve clinical outcomes in selected patients on VA-ECMO. Nevertheless, randomized trials are needed to validate these results.

Timing of Active Left Ventricular Unloading in Patients on Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: It is currently unclear if active left ventricular (LV) unloading should be used as a primary treatment strategy or as a bailout in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association between timing of active LV unloading and implantation of VA-ECMO with outcomes of patients with CS. METHODS: Data from 421 patients with CS treated with VA-ECMO and active LV unloading at 18 tertiary care centers in 4 countries were analyzed. Patients were stratified by timing of device implantation in early vs delayed active LV unloading (defined by implantation before up to 2 hours after VA-ECMO). Adjusted Cox and logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between early active LV unloading and 30-day mortality as well as successful weaning from ventilation. RESULTS: Overall, 310 (73.6%) patients with CS were treated with early active LV unloading. Early active LV unloading was associated with a lower 30-day mortality risk (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46-0.88) and a higher likelihood of successful weaning from ventilation (OR: 2.17; 95% CI: 1.19-3.93) but not with more complications. Importantly, the relative mortality risk increased and the likelihood of successful weaning from ventilation decreased almost proportionally with the time interval between VA-ECMO implantation and (delayed) initiation of active LV unloading. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study lends support to the use of early active LV unloading in CS patients on VA-ECMO, although the findings need to be validated in a randomized controlled trial.

Benefits of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support in Patients with Postcardiotomy Shock Requiring Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of the combined use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for postcardiotomy shock remains unclear. We aimed to analyse the potential benefits and safety of combining these two devices. METHODS: We enrolled 200 patients treated with either VA-ECMO only or in combination with IABP (ECMO-I group) between January 2012 and January 2021. To adjust the patients' backgrounds, we used propensity score matching for additional analyses, resulting in 57 pairs. The primary endpoint was 30-day survival. Secondary endpoints included successful weaning and complication rates. We also analysed hemodynamic parameters in both groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 30-day survival was better in the ECMO-I group (log-rank p = 0.004). The ECMO-I and ECMO-only groups differed regarding the secondary endpoints, including successful weaning (50.9% and 26.3%, respectively; p = 0.012) and the need for continuous renal replacement therapy (28.1% and 50.9%, p = 0.021). Complication rates were not statistically different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Compared to VA-ECMO alone, the combined use of VA-ECMO and IABP is beneficial regarding 30-day survival in selected patients with postcardiotomy shock; successful ECMO weaning and freedom from renal replacement therapy is more common in patients supported with VA-ECMO plus IABP.

Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal life support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: surgical venting versus Impella device.

OBJECTIVES: Patients in cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may experience severe complications from reduced left ventricular (LV) unloading and increased cardiac afterload. These effects are usually modified by adding a percutaneous direct Impella vent or surgical LV vent on top of VA-ECMO in selected patients. However, direct comparisons between 2 LV unloading strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction are lacking. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of these 2 different approaches. METHODS: We enrolled 112 patients treated with an Impella or surgical LV vent during VA-ECMO support between January 2014 and February 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included rates of myocardial recovery or transition to durable mechanical circulatory support. Additionally, we assessed adverse events such as peripheral ischaemic complications requiring intervention, sepsis and ischaemic stroke. RESULTS: At 30 days, 38 patients in the Impella group (54%) and 26 patients in the surgical LV vent group (63%) had died (relative risk with Impella 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.30; P = 0.35). Impella group and the surgical LV vent group differed significantly with respect to the secondary end points including rates of myocardial recovery (24% and 7%, respectively; P = 0.022) and rates of durable mechanical circulatory support (17% and 42%, P = 0.012). Complication rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Impella device as therapeutic unloading therapy during VA-ECMO did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality compared to surgical LV vent in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.

Model for end-stage liver disease predicts mortality after pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis.

OBJECTIVES: Prognosis after pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis (CP) is affected by the aetiology of the constriction as well as by concomitant cardiac and non-cardiac disease, including liver dysfunction. However, few data exist on the risk stratification that accounts for liver function in patients with CP. We evaluated the effectiveness of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, an established measure of liver dysfunction, in predicting long-term survival and identifying other risk factors for death. METHODS: A total of 79 patients who underwent pericardiectomy for CP at a single centre between 2009 and 2016 were analysed. The prognostic utility of the MELD score was evaluated in our cohort. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to assess the association of various clinical variables with 1-year and overall mortality rates. RESULTS: With multivariable analysis, only the MELD score was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (P < 0.001); apart from the MELD (P = 0.003) score, post-surgical CP (P = 0.016), total bilirubin level (P = 0.042) and the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score II (P = 0.002) were independent predictors of overall mortality after pericardiectomy. Overall survival decreased as the MELD score increased. Scores ≤ 7.5, 7.51-15.50 and >15.5 were associated with overall survival rates of 92.9%, 69.8% and 8.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the underlying aetiology, we demonstrated that assessment of liver dysfunction using the MELD score provides additional information about risk because it is associated with postoperative death in patients undergoing pericardiectomy for CP.