Cardiac Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Community Cardiac Surgery Program: Are the Results Comparable?

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) outcomes in small centers are commonly considered less favorable than in large-volume centers. New ECMO protocols and procedures were established in our regional community hospital system as part of a cardiogenic shock initiative. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the outcomes of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in a community hospital system with cardiac surgery capability and assess whether protocol optimization and cannulation standards result in comparable outcomes to larger centers whether the outcomes of this new ECMO program at the community hospital setting were comparable to the United States averages. METHODS: Our regional system comprises five hospitals with 1500 beds covering southwestern New Jersey, with only one of these hospitals having cardiac surgery and ECMO capability. In May 2021, the new ECMO program was initiated. Patients were screened by a multidisciplinary call, cannulated by our ECMO team, and subsequently treated by the designated team. We reviewed our cardiac ECMO outcomes over two years, from May 2021 to April 2023, in patients who required ECMO due to cardiogenic shock or as a part of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). RESULTS: A total of 60 patients underwent cardiac ECMO, and all were VA ECMO, including 18 (30%) patients who required ECPR for cardiac arrest. The overall survival rate for our cardiac ECMO program turned out to be 48% (29/60), with 50% (22/42) in VA ECMO excluding ECPR and 39% (7/18) in the ECPR group. The hospital survival rate for the VA ECMO and ECPR groups was 36% (15/42) and 28% (5/18), respectively. The ELSO-reported national average for hospital survival is 48% for VA ECMO and 30% for ECPR. Considering these benchmarks, the hospital survival rate of our program did not significantly lag behind the national average. CONCLUSIONS: With protocol, cannulation standards, and ECMO management optimized, the VA ECMO results of a community hospital system with cardiac surgery capability were not inferior to those of larger centers.

Impact of Hydroxychloroquine/Chloroquine in COVID-19 Therapy: Two Sides of the Coin.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), has recently emerged as a global health threat. To address this health emergency, various therapeutic approaches are currently under investigation. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) as COVID-19 therapies, and thus World Health Organization (WHO) mentioned that "Current data shows that this drug does not reduce deaths among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, nor help people with mild or moderate disease." CQ and HCQ are typically used for the treatment of malaria but have been recognized for certain beneficial effects in COVID-19 patients based on some clinical outcomes from the clinical treatment of COVID-19. A standard dose of HCQ has been proven effective and less toxic than CQ in COVID-19 patients; however, a comprehensive understanding of a patient's clinical condition is necessary. Based on several hospital findings, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has officially cancelled the emergency use authorization for HCQ and CQ for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients on June 15, 2020. In this review, we highlight both pros and cons of the clinical use of CQ and HCQ in COVID-19 patients.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Decommissioning Compared with Explantation for Ventricular Recovery: A Systematic Review.

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) withdrawal with ventricular recovery represents the optimal outcome for patients previously implanted with an LVAD. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the patient outcomes of device withdrawal via minimally invasive pump decommissioning as compared with reoperation for pump explantation. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature assessing LVAD withdrawal. All identified articles were systematically assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, 44 studies (85 patients) were included in the analysis, of whom 20% underwent decommissioning and 80% underwent explantation. The most commonly used LVAD types included the HeartMate II (decommissioning 23.5% vs. explantation 60.3%; p = 0.01) and HeartWare HVAD (decommissioning 76.5% vs. explantation 17.6%; p < 0.001). At median follow-up of 389 days, there were no significant differences in the incidence of cerebrovascular accidents (p = 0.88), infection (p = 0.75), and survival (p = 0.20). However, there was a trend toward a higher recurrence of heart failure in patients who underwent decommissioning as compared with explantation (decommissioning 15.4% vs. explantation 8.2%, cumulative hazard; p = 0.06). Decommissioning appears to be a feasible alternative to LVAD explantation in terms of overall patient outcomes.

Indications and outcomes of combined heart-liver transplant: A systematic review and met-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Combined heart-liver transplantation (CHLT) has become a viable option for treating concomitant heart and liver failure. However, data are lacking with respect to long-term outcomes. METHODS: An electronic search was performed to identify all studies on CHLT. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of seven studies consisting of 99 CHLT patients were included from the original 1864 articles. RESULTS: CHLT recipient mean age was 53.0 years (95% CI 48.0-58.0), 67.5% of which (95% CI 56.5-76.9) were male. 65.5% (95% CI 39.0-85.0) of patients developed heart failure due to amyloidosis whereas 21.6% (95% CI 12.3-35.2) developed heart failure due to congenital causes. The most common indication for liver transplant was amyloidosis [65.5% (95% CI 39.0-85.0)] followed by liver failure due to hepatitis C [13.8% (95% CI 2.1-54.4)]. The mean intensive care unit length of stay was 8 days (95% CI 5-11) with a mean length of stay of 24 days (95% CI 17-31). Cardiac allograft rejection within the first year was 24.7% (95% CI 9.5-50.7), including antibody mediated [5% (95% CI 1.7-15.2)] and T-cell mediated rejection [22.7% (95% CI 8.8-47.1)]. Overall survival was 87.5% (95% CI 78.6-93.0) at 1 year and 84.3% (95% CI 75.4-90.5) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: CHLT in select patients with coexisting end-stage heart and liver failure appears to offer high survival and low rejection rates.

Management and outcomes of left ventricular assist device-associated endocarditis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-associated endocarditis remains poorly studied, especially in newer continuous-flow LVADs (CF-LVADs). The aim of this review was to assess outcomes of patients with LVAD-associated endocarditis, as stratified by CF-LVAD and pulsatile LVAD (P-LVAD) use as well as by different interventions and pathogen types. METHODS: An electronic search was performed to identify studies in the English literature on LVAD-associated endocarditis. RESULTS: Overall, 16 articles with 26 patients were included; seven had CF-LVADs and 19 had P-LVADs; time to development of endocarditis was 91 days (152 vs. 65 days, respectively, P=0.05). Eleven of 25 patients were treated with antibiotics only. Remaining 14 patients received antibiotics, however, they also underwent additional surgical intervention. One patient was treated with embolization alone for mycotic aneurysm and was therefore excluded. At a median follow-up time of 344 days post implant, there was no difference in overall mortality between CF-LVAD and P-LVAD-associated endocarditis patients (57.9% vs. 42.9%, P=0.81). Patients who underwent additional surgical intervention had higher overall survival compared to those treated with antibiotics alone (71.4% vs. 27.3%, P=0.07); with no difference in outcomes amongst those who underwent surgical device exchange as compared to heart transplantation (80.0% vs. 66.7%; P=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients with P-LVADs, CF-LVAD patients appeared to be resistant to early development of LVAD-associated endocarditis. There was a trend towards high survival observed amongst patients who underwent additional surgical intervention as compared to those treated with antibiotics alone, with no difference amongst surgical device exchange as compared to heart transplantation. Advantages of additional surgical intervention vs. medical therapy alone deserves further exploration to determine its applicability in CF-LVADs.

Single versus multi-drug antimicrobial surgical infection prophylaxis for left ventricular assist devices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Infection remains the Achilles heel of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. However, an optimal antimicrobial surgical infection prophylaxis (SIP) regimen has not been established. This study evaluated the efficacy of a single-drug SIP compared to a multi-drug SIP on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing continuous-flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) and pulsatile LVAD (P-LVAD) implantation. An electronic search was performed to identify studies in the English literature on SIP regimens in patients undergoing LVAD implantation. Identified articles were assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen articles with 1,311 (CF-LVAD: 888; P-LVAD: 423) patients were analyzed. Overall, 501 (38.0%) patients received single-drug SIP, whereas 810 (62.0%) received multi-drug SIP. Time to infection was comparable between groups. There was no significant difference in overall incidence of LVAD-specific infections [single-drug: 18.7% vs. multi-drug: 24.8%, P = 0.49] including driveline infections [single-drug: 14.1% vs. multi-drug: 20.8%, P = 0.37]. Compared to single-drug SIP, patients who received multi-drug SIP had a significantly lower survival rate [single-drug: 90.0% vs. multi-drug: 76.0%, P = 0.01] and infection-free survival rate [single-drug: 88.4% vs. multi-drug: 77.3%, P = 0.04] at 90 days. However, there were no significant differences in 1-year survival and 1-year infection-free survival between groups. No survival differences were observed in the CF-LVAD subset as well. This study demonstrated no additional advantage of a multi-drug compared to a single-drug regimen for SIP. Although there was a modest advantage in early survival among CF-LVAD and P-LVAD patients who received single-drug SIP, there were no significant differences in the 1-year survival and 1-year infection-free survival.

Graft patency after open versus endoscopic saphenous vein harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein grafts (SVG) are a commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and can be harvested by either an open or endoscopic technique. Our goal was to evaluate long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes of open compared to endoscopic SVG harvest for CABG. METHODS: Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature that compared open and endoscopic SVG harvesting for CABG with at least one year of follow-up. The primary outcome was graft patency. Secondary outcomes included perioperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Of 3,255 articles identified, a total of 11 studies were included for analysis. Of 18,131 patients, 10,873 (60%) patients underwent open SVG harvest and 7,258 (40%) patients underwent endoscopic SVG harvest. The mean age of patients was 65 years and 87% were male. The overall mean follow-up period was 2.6 years. During follow-up, patients who underwent open SVG harvest had superior graft patency per graft [open 82.3% vs. endoscopic 75.1%; OR: 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43-0.87); P=0.01], but higher rates of overall wound complications in the immediate post-operative period [open 3.3% vs. endoscopic 1.1%; OR: 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.06); P<0.001]. Patients who underwent open SVG harvest had higher postoperative 30-day mortality [open 3.4% vs. endoscopic 2.1%; OR: 0.59 (95% CI, 0.37-0.94); P=0.03], but no significant difference in overall mortality [open 4.9% vs. endoscopic 4.9%; OR: 0.34 (95% CI, 0.50-1.27); P=0.34]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent an open SVG harvest technique had improved graft patency and comparable overall mortality to endoscopic SVG harvest at average follow-up time of 2.6 years. Patients with open SVG harvest had higher rates of early wound complications and postoperative 30-day mortality, however, there was no difference in overall mortality.

Outcomes and survival following heart retransplantation for cardiac allograft failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Long-term efficacy of heart retransplantation (RTx) for end-stage cardiac allograft failure remains unclear given the limited worldwide experience and is an important question to elucidate given the shortage of donor organs. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the outcomes of RTx in patients with cardiac allograft failure. METHODS: Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature assessing RTx for cardiac allograft failure. All identified articles were systematically assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included for analysis, with a total of 7,791 patients. A total of 7,446 patients underwent primary heart transplantation (HTx) whereas 345 patients underwent RTx with average time from primary HTx to RTx interval of 5.03 years (95% CI: 3.13-6.94 years). There were 35.2% of patients received RTx within 30 days of primary transplant. Early mortality was significantly higher among RTx patients (RTx 28.2% vs. HTx 11.2%, P<0.001) whereas survival was significantly higher among HTx patients when compared to RTx patients at 1 year (HTx 81.8% vs. RTx 59.1%, P<0.001), 2 years (HTx 77.9% vs. RTx 53.6%, P<0.001), 3 years (HTx 76.1% vs. RTx 49.8%, P<0.001), 5 years (HTx 68.8% vs. RTx 41.4%, P<0.001) and 10 years (HTx 53.9% vs. RTx 31.7%, P<0.001). There were no significant differences between HTx and RTx in terms of freedom from rejection at 1 year (HTx 61.0% vs. RTx 53.7%, P=0.43), 2 years (HTx 63.8% vs. RTx 53.7%, P=0.26), 3 years (HTx 62.9% vs. RTx 51.9%, P=0.30) and 5 years (HTx 61.0% vs. RTx 51.9%, P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent heart RTx had a significant lower survival when compared to those who only underwent primary HTx. There were no significant differences in post-transplantation freedom from rejection. Careful patient selection and perioperative care can make heart RTx a viable option for selected recipients.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in heart transplant recipients with coronary allograft vasculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,520 patients.

BACKGROUND: Transplant coronary artery vasculopathy (TCAV) is the major cause of late allograft failure and death in heart transplant recipients. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) as compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the management of TCAV. Our secondary objective was to compare the use and outcomes of drug eluting stents (DES) as compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in this patient population. METHODS: Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature examining PCI as compared to CABG for TCAV in heart transplant recipients. All identified articles were systematically assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the 4,989 studies identified, 29 studies were included. Among 1,520 patients who developed TCAV, 1,470 patients underwent PCI and 50 patients underwent CABG. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics and comorbidities among the PCI and CABG cohorts. Compared to the PCI cohort, patients who underwent CABG had a higher early mortality (CABG 36.4% vs. PCI 4.3%, P<0.001) and overall mortality (CABG 42.3% vs. PCI 21.4%, P=0.049). When comparing DES versus BMS cohorts, there were no significant differences in the rate of in-stent stenosis (DES 14.5% vs. BMS 24.4%, P=0.476), overall mortality (DES 17.4% vs. BMS 30.8%, P=0.302) or cardiac related mortality (DES 7.7% vs. BMS 21.8%, P=0.415). CONCLUSIONS: CABG and PCI are both feasible modalities for revascularization in patients with TCAV where PCI is associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in outcomes among patients who underwent PCI with DES as compared to BMS. Potential bias may exist due to heterogeneity in available data. Further studies are needed to delineate evidence-based guidelines to tailor the appropriate therapy, CABG or PCI, to the appropriate patient.