Extracorporeal Life Support in Myocardial Infarction: New Highlights.

Background and Objectives: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a potentially severe complication following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in these patients has risen significantly over the past two decades, especially when conventional treatments fail. Our aim is to provide an overview of the role of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI, with the most recent literature highlights. Materials and Methods: We have reviewed the current VA-ECMO practices with a particular focus on CS complicating AMI. The largest studies reporting the most significant results, i.e., overall clinical outcomes and management of the weaning process, were identified in the PubMed database from 2019 to 2024. Results: The literature about the use of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI primarily has consisted of observational studies until 2019, generating the need for randomized controlled trials. The EURO-SHOCK trial showed a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate in patients receiving VA-ECMO compared to those receiving standard therapy. The ECMO-CS trial compared immediate VA-ECMO implementation with early conservative therapy, with a similar mortality rate between the two groups. The ECLS-SHOCK trial, the largest randomized controlled trial in this field, found no significant difference in mortality at 30 days between the ECMO group and the control group. Recent studies suggest the potential benefits of combining left ventricular unloading devices with VA-ECMO, but they also highlight the increased complication rate, such as bleeding and vascular issues. The routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI complicated by CS cannot be universally supported due to limited evidence and associated risks. Ongoing trials like the Danger Shock, Anchor, and Recover IV trials aim to provide further insights into the management of AMI complicated by CS. Conclusions: Standardizing the timing and indications for initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial and should guide future trials. Multidisciplinary approaches tailored to individual patient needs are essential to minimize complications from unnecessary MCS device initiation.

Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators for the Treatment of Right Ventricular Failure in Cardio-Thoracic Surgery: Is One Better than the Others?

Right ventricular failure (RFV) is a potential complication following cardio-thoracic surgery, with an incidence ranging from 0.1% to 30%. The increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is one of the main triggers of perioperative RVF. Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVs) can reduce PVR and improve right ventricular function with minimal systemic effects. This narrative review aims to assess the efficacy of inhaled nitric oxide and inhaled prostacyclins for the treatment of perioperative RVF. The literature, although statistically limited, supports the clinical similarity between them. However, it failed to demonstrate a clear benefit from the pre-emptive use of inhaled nitric oxide in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation or early administration during heart-lung transplants. Additional concerns are related to cost safety and IPV use in pathologies associated with pulmonary venous congestion. The largest ongoing randomized controlled trial on adults (INSPIRE-FLO) is addressing whether inhaled Epoprostenol and inhaled nitric oxide are similar in preventing RVF after heart transplants and left ventricular assist device placement, and whether they are similar in preventing primary graft dysfunction after lung transplants. The preliminary analysis supports their equivalence. Several key points may be achieved by the present narrative review. When RVF occurs in the setting of elevated PVR, IPV should be the preferred initial treatment and they should be preventively used in patients at high risk of postoperative RVF. If severe refractory postoperative RVF occurs, IPVs should be combined with complementary pharmacology (inotropes and inodilators). If unsuccessful, right ventricular mechanical support should be established.

Proportion of right ventricular failure and echocardiographic predictors in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Right ventricular failure (RVF) in patients with a continuous-flow left ventricle assist device (CF-LVAD) is associated with higher incidence of mortality. This systematic review aims to assess the overall proportion of RVF and the pre-operative echocardiographic parameters which are best correlating to RVF. Methods: A systematic research was conducted between 2008 and 2019 on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, UPTODATE, OVID, COCHRANE LIBRARY, and Google Scholar electronic databases by performing a PRISMA flowchart. All observational studies regarding echocardiographic predictors of RVF in patients undergoing CF-LVAD implantation were included. Results: A total number of 19 observational human studies published between 2008 and 2019 were included. We identified 524 RVF patients out of a pooled final population of 1741 patients. The RVF overall proportion was 28.25% with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.34. The highest variability of perioperative echocardiographic parameters between the RVF and no right ventricular failure (NO-RVF) groups has been found with tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC), and right ventricular global longitudinal strain (RVGLS). Their standardized mean deviation (SMD) was - 0.33 (95% CI - 0.54 to - 0.11; p value 0.003), - 0.34 (95% CI - 0.53 to - 0.15; p value 0.0001), and 0.52 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.25; p value 0.0001), respectively. Conclusions: The echocardiographic predictors of RVF after CF-LVAD placement are still uncertain. However, there seems to be a trend of statistical correlation between TAPSE, FAC, and RVGLS with RVF event after CF-LVAD placement. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-022-01447-7.

Increased duration and similar outcomes of V-V ECLS in patients with COVID-19 ARDS compared to non-COVID ARDS: Single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Veno-venous extracorporeal life support (V-V ECLS or V-V ECMO) has been adopted as a rescue support in severe cases of COVID-19 ARDS. Initial reports on the use of V-V ECLS in COVID-19 patients reported very high mortality rates (57%-94%), but subsequent studies showed much lower rates (30%-40%). The aim of this study is to analyze demographic features, clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 treated with V-V ECLS during the Italian 'third wave', in which the alpha variant was prevalent in the country. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective observational study conducted at the ECLS referral center of a teaching hospital in Italy from January 1st, 2021 and October 31st, 2021. RESULTS: Between January and October 2021, 18 consecutive adult patients who underwent V-V ECLS for severe ARDS due to COVID-19 were enrolled. Thirteen patients (72.2%) were male, and their median age was 50 years; the median P/F ratio before V-V ECLS initiation was 43 mm Hg (IQR, 40; 56), and the median RESP score was 0.5 (IQR, -2.25; 1.0). The mortality rate at 90 days was 55.6, compared to 55.7% in non-COVID patients in our center (p > 0.05); the median duration of ECLS was 29 days (IQR, 11; 32), compared to 10 days (IQR, 8; 15), in non-COVID patients (p = 0.004). Incidence of complications was high. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 ARDS receiving V-V ECLS, unadjusted mortality was similar to pre-pandemic V-V ECLS cases, while the duration of ECLS was almost three times longer and with frequent complications. This could be partly explained by the selection of very sick patients at the baseline that evolved to multiorgan failure during the course of ECLS.

Veno-venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in COVID-19 Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Initial Experience.

SARS-CoV-2 may cause severe respiratory failure due to massive alveolar damage. Currently, no adequate curative therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease exists. By considering overall impact of COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, an increased need of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support becomes evident. We report on our preliminary institutional experience with COVID-19 patients receiving venovenous ECMO support.

Urgent lung transplantation in acute fibrinous and organizing pneumonia: a sliding door or a new perspective?

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation is nowadays the standard therapy for certain well-defined chronic end-stage lung diseases, even in patients on mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal life support. While these latter techniques have been used worldwide as bridging options to lung transplantation for listed patients, they are not commonly used in previously healthy patients developing acute not-reversible lung failure. METHODS: We will discuss two patients without any relevant medical history developing acute lung failure evolving to irreversible acute fibrinous and organising pneumonia (AFOP), thus listed for urgent lung transplantation. RESULTS: The patients recovered well, and both are still alive. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of clear guidelines, our approach showed, in these patients, the possible benefits of lung transplantation regarding survival in AFOP.