How effective are continuous flow left ventricular assist devices in lowering high pulmonary artery pressures in heart transplant candidates?

Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is considered a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing heart transplantation. Medical therapy with oral and pharmacologic agents is not always effective in reducing pulmonary artery (PA) pressures. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used to reduce PA pressures in cases of PH unresponsive to medical therapy. Methods and results: Our study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of axial- and centrifugal- continuous flow LVADs in reversing PH in heart transplant candidates. Hemodynamics were assessed pre- and post-operatively in nine patients undergoing HeartMate II and six patients undergoing HeartWare continuous flow LVADs. Mean PA pressures were reduced from 31.9 ± 10.6 mm Hg to 22.1 ± 6.6 mm Hg (p = 0.001), and pulmonary vascular resistance was reduced from 3.08 ± 1.6 mm Hg to 1.8 ± 1.0 mm Hg (p = 0.007). This improvement was seen within seven days of LVAD implantation. Three of 15 patients were successfully transplanted, with 100% survival at an average of 199 days post-transplant. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that both axial- and centrifugal-continuous flow LVADs are effective in immediately lowering PA pressures in heart transplant candidates with PH. (Cardiol J 2012; 19, 2: 153–158

Embol-X Intra-Aortic Filtration System: Capturing Particulate Emboli in the Cardiac Surgery Patient

We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of using an intra-aortic filtration system for the prevention of particulate emboli transport and the minimization of significant postoperative complications associated with particulate emboli. Between October of 2000 and October 2001, a total of 146 patients were enrolled at Advocate Christ Medical Center as part of the multi-institutional randomized trial (1289 patients at 22 centers). A total of 74 patients (51%) received the Embol-X intra-aortic filter and 72 patients (49%) were enrolled in the control group. Patients were evaluated for neurological deficit, myocardial infarction, renal insufficiency/failure, limb ischemia, and death at 12-hour, 24-hour, 72-hour, 7-day, and 30-day postoperative intervals. All filters received histological examination for particulate matter. Particulate matter was isolated in 70 (94.5%) of the filters successfully deployed. There was no statistically significant difference in the device related events between the filter and conventional cannulation groups (9/74 = 12.1% vs. 7/72 = 9.7%). Although not clinically evident, the primary event for both groups was ascending aortic intimal tears. There was one death in each of the groups not related to the filter or cannula used. The use of the Embol-X intra-aortic filter system has proven to be a safe and effective means to reduce the introduction of particulate emboli into the systemic circulation. Clearly, the reduction of particulate matter by as much as 95% justifies its use in cardiac surgery patients identified with an increased preoperative embolic risk

Endocarditis Complicated by Severe Aortic Insufficiency in a Patient with COVID-19: Diagnostic and Management Implications

A 38-year-old man presented with cough, shortness of breath, and fatigue. He was diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) as well as Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia. Imaging revealed a subaortic membrane with aortic valve endocarditis and severe aortic insufficiency. He had successful aortic valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis and subaortic membrane resection. This case highlights some of the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges presented by COVID-19 pandemic

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with COVID-19 in severe respiratory failure

This cohort study examines the outcome of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 40 patients recently hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 in the US

Outcomes of patients with COVID-19 supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for greater than 90 daysCentral MessagePerspective

Objective: To determine the characteristics and outcomes of patients requiring prolonged (>90 days) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) support for refractory Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated respiratory failure. Methods: A retrospective, observational analysis of consecutive patients requiring VV ECMO for COVID-19–associated respiratory failure was performed at a single institution between March 2020 and January 2022. Data were collected from the medical records. Patients were predominantly cannulated and supported long-term with a single, dual-lumen cannula in the internal jugular vein with the tip positioned in the pulmonary artery. All patients were managed with an awake VV ECMO approach, emphasizing avoidance of sedatives, extubation, ambulation, physical therapy, and nutrition. Patients requiring >90 days of ECMO were identified, analyzed, and compared to those needing a shorter duration of support. Results: A total of 44 patients were supported on VV ECMO during the study period, of whom 36 (82%) survived to discharge. Thirty-one patients were supported for 90 days of ECMO. All patients were extubated. Eight patients (62%) survived to discharge, with 1 patient requiring lung transplantation prior to decannulation. All survivors were free from mechanical ventilation and alive at a 6-month follow-up. Of the 4 patients who died on prolonged ECMO, 2 developed hemothorax necessitating surgery and 2 succumbed to fatal intracranial hemorrhage. Conclusions: Patients treated with VV ECMO for COVID-19–associated respiratory failure may require prolonged support to recover. Extubation, ambulation, aggressive rehabilitation, and nutritional support while on ECMO can yield favorable outcomes

Comparative propensity matched outcomes in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or maximum ventilation alone

Objective: Does extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) improve outcomes in ECMO-eligible patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure compared to maximum ventilation alone (MVA)? Summary background data: ECMO is beneficial in severe cases of respiratory failure when mechanical ventilation is inadequate. Outcomes for ECMO-eligible COVID-19 patients on MVA have not been reported. Consequently, a direct comparison between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and those on MVA has not been established. Methods: A total of 3406 COVID-19 patients treated at two major medical centers in Chicago were studied. One hundred ninety-five required maximum ventilatory support, and met ECMO eligibility criteria. Eighty ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients using detailed demographic, physiological, and comorbidity data. Primary outcome was survival and disposition at discharge. Results: Seventy-one percent of patients were decannulated from ECMO. Mechanical ventilation was discontinued in 75% ECMO and 16% MVA patients. Twenty-five percent of patients in the ECMO arm expired, 21% while on ECMO, compared with 74% in the MVA cohort. Mortality was significantly lower across all age and BMI groups in the ECMO arm. Sixty-eight percent ECMO and 26% MVA patients were discharged from the hospital. Fewer ECMO patients required long-term rehabilitation. Major complications such as septic shock, ventilator associated pneumonia, inotropic requirements, acute liver and kidney injuries are less frequent among ECMO patients. Conclusions: ECMO-eligible patients with severe COVID-19 respiratory failure demonstrate a 3-fold improvement in survival with ECMO. They are also in a better physical state at discharge and have lower overall complication rates. As such, strong consideration should be given for ECMO when mechanical ventilatory support alone becomes insufficient in treating COVID-19 respiratory failure