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.

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.

Heart transplantation after SynCardia® total artificial heart implantation.

BACKGROUND: The SynCardia total artificial heart (TAH)® is the only approved TAH device. This report summarizes our single-center experience with the SynCardia TAH® with particular focus on the outcome after subsequent heart transplantation. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the outcome of all transplanted SynCardia TAH® patients at our center between 2001 and 2019 in comparison to transplanted left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and biventricular assist device (BVAD) patients and to transplanted patients without prior durable mechanical circulatory support (non-MCS). RESULTS: Only a fraction (n=69; 37.3%) of all SynCardia TAH® patients (n=193) were transplanted. The majority (81.2%) of those were in high-urgency status at the time of transplantation. Survival in transplanted SynCardia TAH® patients was significantly poorer when compared to LVAD-, BVAD- and non-MCS patients (P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplantation in SynCardia TAH® patients requires distinct risk stratification to improve outcomes.