Left Ventricular Unloading in v-a ECLS Patients

The v-a ECLS is an effective approach for mechanical circulatory support, however, it is associated with several disadvantages. An increased afterload generated by a pump outflow leads to a left ventricular (LV) distension, pulmonary congestion, and lung edema on one hand and impairs myocardial perfusion on the other. In this chapter, we will discuss the rationality as well as different techniques for LV unloading during v-a ECLS support

Cardiogenic Shock Management and Research: Past, Present, and Future Outlook

Although great strides have been made in the pathophysiological understanding, diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock (CS), morbidity and mortality in patients presenting with the condition remain high. Acute MI is the commonest cause of CS; consequently, most existing literature concerns MI-associated CS. However, there are many more phenotypes of patients with acute heart failure. Medical treatment and mechanical circulatory support are well-established therapeutic options, but evidence for many current treatment regimens is limited. The issue is further complicated by the fact that implementing adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are challenging for many reasons. In this review, the authors discuss the history, landmark trials, current topics of medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support regimens, and future perspectives of CS management

Patient related outcomes of mechanical lead extraction techniques (PROMET) study: A comparison of two professions

BACKGROUND With an increasing number of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), there has been a paralleled increase in demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Cardiac surgeons (CS) and cardiologists perform TLE; however, data comparing the two groups of operators is scarce. OBJECTIVE We compared the outcomes of TLE performed by cardiologists and CS from six European lead extraction units. METHOD Data was collected retrospectively of 2205 patients who had 3849 leads extracted (PROMET) between 2005 and 2018. Patient demographics and procedural outcomes were compared between the CS and cardiologist groups, using propensity score matching. A multivariate regression analysis was also performed for variables associated with 30-day mortality. RESULTS CS performed the majority of extractions (59.8%), of leads with longer dwell times (90 [57-129 interquartile range (IQR)] vs. 62 [31-102 IQR] months, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001) and with pre-dominantly non-infectious indications (57.4% vs. 50.2%, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001). CS achieved a higher complete success per lead than the cardiologists (98.1% vs. 95.7%, respectively, p < .01), with a higher number of minor complications (5.51% vs. 2.1%, p < .01) and similar number of major complications (0.47% vs. 1.3%, p = .12). Thirty-day mortality was similarly low in the CS and cardiologist groups (1.76% vs. 0.94%, p = .21). Unmatched data multivariate analysis revealed infection indication (OR 6.12 [1.9-20.3], p < .01), procedure duration (OR 1.01 [1.01-1.02], p < .01) and CS operator (OR 2.67, [1.12-6.37], p = .027) were associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION TLE by CS was performed with similar safety and higher efficacy compared to cardiologists in high and medium-volume lead extraction centers