External cardiac compression during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with left ventricular assist devices

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol to determine whether there is evidence that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by compressing the chest is safe and effective in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Manufacturers warn of a possible risk of device dislodgement if the chest is compressed. AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE, BNI and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2014. Animal studies, case reports, case series, case–control studies, randomized controlled studies and systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. Opinion articles with no reference to data were excluded. Of 45 unique results, 3 articles merited inclusion. A total of 10 patients with LVADs received chest compression during resuscitation. There was no report of device dislodgement as judged by postarrest flow rate, autopsy and resumption of effective circulation and/or neurological function. The longest duration of chest compression was 150 min. However, there are no comparisons of the efficacy of chest compressions relative to alternative means of external CPR, such as abdominal-only compressions. The absence of high-quality data precludes definitive recommendation of any particular form of CPR, in patients with LVADs. However, data identified suggest that chest compression is not as unsafe as previously thought. The efficacy of chest compressions in this patient population has not yet been investigated. Further research is required to address both the safety and efficacy of chest compressions in this population. Urgent presentation and publication of further evidence will inform future guidance

In patients with carcinoid syndrome undergoing valve replacement: will a biological valve have acceptable durability?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘In patients with carcinoid syndrome undergoing valve replacement, will a biological valve have acceptable durability?’ Altogether, more than 130 papers were found using the reported search, of which 17 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The pooled data from all papers represent 51 patients with carcinoid right heart disease who underwent tricuspid valve replacement. Two ‘outcomes’ studies reported a 30-day postoperative mortality of 16.7–18% and 2-year survival rates of 44 and 50%, respectively. Seventeen patients were detailed in case reports. Of these 17 patients, 7 died during the follow-up period. All but one of these patients had a normal bioprosthesis at echocardiography or at post-mortem. One patient with a plaque-covered valve had a functionally normal valve. We conclude that at present, the best available evidence suggests that although 30-day mortality approaches 20%, approximately half of patients with carcinoid syndrome undergoing tricuspid valve replacement can be expected to survive 2 years. Some patients survive considerably longer than this, beyond 10 years in some cases. Importantly, at autopsy, many replacement valves have been shown to be normal, with a few patients reported as having died of cardiac causes. This should be taken as cautious evidence that biological valves have an acceptable lifespan in patients with carcinoid syndrome and that the process of valve destruction seen in carcinoid patients does not continue to a significant level in the bioprosthesis. Caveats to this include the lack of any directly comparative trial and the predominance of case reports as opposed to higher-level evidence