Faculty Bibliography

Postcardiotomy shock (PCS) has historically been associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Mortality at discharge is reportedly more than 60%. We investigated the outcomes of our standardized approach to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) management for PCS. We retrospectively reviewed 60 consecutive PCS patients who required ECMO following major cardiac surgery from January 2017 to September 2019. Index surgery included CABG (n = 10), valve (n = 23), valve and CABG (n = 12), root surgery (n = 10), and other (n = 5). Median lactate level, systolic blood pressure, and mean pulmonary artery pressure before ECMO were 4.0 mmol/L, 80 mm Hg, and 29 mm Hg, respectively. Fifty-nine patients (98%) were on two vasopressors, and 54 (90%) were on at least two inotropes. Vasoactive-Inotropic Score was 30 (IQR, 25-49). Eighty percent of patients received peripheral ECMO. Median ECMO flow index was 1.61 (IQR, 1.4-2.0) L/min/m2. Anticoagulation was not given in 12 (20%) patients during ECMO support. Major adverse events included chest re-exploration (15%), stroke (6.7%), renal replacement therapy (22%), and limb ischemia (5%). In-hospital mortality was 33%. This study suggests that a standardized approach with a dedicated ECMO team is feasible and may improve outcomes of PCS.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a condition associated with high mortality rates in which prognostication is uncertain for a variety of reasons, including its myriad causes, its rapidly evolving clinical course and the plethora of established and emerging therapies for the condition. A number of validated risk scores are available for CS prognostication; however, many of these are tedious to use, are designed for application in a variety of populations and fail to incorporate contemporary hemodynamic parameters and contemporary mechanical circulatory support interventions that can affect outcomes. It is important to separate patients with CS who may recover with conservative pharmacological therapies from those in who may require advanced therapies to survive; it is equally important to identify quickly those who will succumb despite any therapy. An ideal risk-prediction model would balance incorporation of key hemodynamic parameters while still allowing dynamic use in multiple scenarios, from aiding with early decision making to device weaning. Herein, we discuss currently available CS risk scores, perform a detailed analysis of the variables in each of these scores that are most predictive of CS outcomes and explore a framework for the development of novel risk scores that consider emerging therapies and paradigms for this challenging clinical entity.

AIMS:We aimed to detail the early clinical experience with pVAD 5.5 at a large academic medical centre. Impella® 5.5 (Abiomed) is a temporary peripherally inserted left ventricular assist device (pVAD) used for the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). This system has several modifications aimed at improving deliverability and durability over the pVAD 5.0 system, but real-world experience with this device remains limited. METHODS AND RESULTS:We collected clinical and outcome data on all patients supported with pVAD 5.5 at our centre between February and December 2020, including procedural and device-related complications. Fourteen patients with pVAD 5.5 were included. Aetiology of CS was acute myocardial infarction (n = 6), decompensated heart failure (n = 6), suspected myocarditis (n = 1), and post-cardiotomy CS (n = 1). Four patients received pVAD 5.5 after being on inotropes alone, two were escalated from intra-aortic balloon pump, two were escalated from pVAD CP, and six patients were transitioned to pVAD 5.5 from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Median duration of pVAD 5.5 support was 12 (interquartile range 7, 25) days. Complications included axillary insertion site haematoma (n = 3), acute kidney injury (n = 3), severe thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and stroke (n = 1). No valve injury or limb complications occurred. Survival to device explant for recovery or transition to another therapy was 11/14 (79%) patients. CONCLUSIONS:In this early experience of the pVAD 5.5, procedural and device-related complications were observed but were manageable, and overall survival was high in this critically ill cohort, particularly when the device was used as a bridge to other therapies.

BACKGROUND:Interventricular interaction, which refers to the impact of left ventricular (LV) function on right ventricular (RV) function and vice versa, has been implicated in the pathogenesis of RV failure in LV assist device (LVAD) recipients. We sought to understand more about interventricular interaction by quantifying changes in the RV systolic and diastolic function with varying LVAD speeds. METHODS AND RESULTS: = 4.0 mL). CONCLUSIONS:Interventricular interaction can improve RV compliance and impair systolic function, but the overall effect on RV performance in this pilot investigation is heterogeneous. Further research is required to understand which patient characteristics and hemodynamic parameters influence the net impact of interventricular interaction.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited data are available on the utilization of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) in the setting of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We performed a single-center study to evaluate treatment, mortality, and bleeding outcomes in patients who received PERT consultations in March and April 2020, compared to historical controls from the same period in 2019. Clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. The primary study endpoints were inpatient mortality and GUSTO moderate-to-severe bleeding. The frequency of PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during March and April 2020 (n = 74) compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 26). During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significantly less PERT-guided invasive treatment (5.5% vs 23.1%, p = 0.02) with a numerical but not statistically significant trend toward an increase in the use of systemic fibrinolytic therapy (13.5% vs 3.9%, p = 0.3). There were nonsignificant trends toward higher in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding in patients receiving PERT consultations during the COVID-19 period compared to historical controls (mortality 14.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.18 and moderate-to-severe bleeding 35.1% vs 19.2%, p = 0.13). In conclusion, PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than during the historical control period. Among patients evaluated by PERT, in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding were not significantly different, despite being numerically higher, while invasive therapy was utilized less frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONTEXT:As the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) increases, decisions regarding withdrawal from VA-ECMO increase. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients withdrawn from VA-ECMO and the role of palliative care consultation in the decision. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed adult patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO at our institution, who were withdrawn from VA-ECMO between January 1, 2014 and May 31, 2019. The relationship between clinical characteristics and palliative care visits was assessed, and documented reasons for withdrawal were identified. RESULTS:Of 460 patients who received VA-ECMO, 91 deceased patients (19.8%) were included. Forty-two patients (44.8%) had a palliative care consultation. The median duration on VA-ECMO was 4.0 days (interquartile range 8.8), and it was significantly longer for patients with palliative care consultation than those without (8.8 days vs. 2.0 days, P < 0.001). Among those with palliative care consultation, those with early consultation (within three days) had significantly shorter duration of VA-ECMO compared with those with late consultation (7.6 days vs. 13.5 days, t = 2.022, P = 0.008). Twenty-two (24.2%) had evidence of brain injury, which was significantly associated with patient age, number of comorbidities, duration of VA-ECMO, number of life-sustaining therapies, and number of palliative care visits (Wilks lambda 0.8925, DF 5,121, P = 0.016). Presence of brain injury was associated with fewer palliative care visits (t = 2.82, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION:Shorter duration of VA-ECMO support and presence of brain injury were associated with fewer palliative care visits. Decisions around withdrawal of VA-ECMO support might be less complicated when patient's medical conditions deteriorate quickly or when neurological prognosis seems poor.

BACKGROUND:Acute myocardial infarction with refractory cardiogenic shock (AMI-RCS) is associated with poor outcomes. Several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices exist; however, limitations exist regarding long-term use. Herein, we describe our experience with the temporary surgical CentriMag VAD. METHODS:We reviewed 74 patients with AMI-RCS who underwent CentriMag VAD insertion as bridge-to-decision device from 2007 to 2020. Patients were divided into groups based on introduction of the "shock team" model: Era 1 (2007-2014, n = 51) and Era 2 (2015-2020, n = 23). RESULTS:Era 2 had higher proportion of patients with INTERMACS Profile I. The use of percutaneous MCS as bridge to VAD and the use of minimally invasive VAD were higher in Era 2. There were fewer postoperative bleeding events in Era 2 (80% vs 61%, p = .07). Thirty-day mortality was 23% and 1-year survival was 55%, which were no differences between eras. Destinations after CentriMag VAD included myocardial recovery (39%), durable LVAD (27%), and transplantation (5%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CentriMag VAD device represents a viable bridge-to-decision device with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes for patients with AMI-RCS. Stable outcomes in a progressively sicker population may be related to changes in practice patterns as well as introduction of the "shock team" concept.

OBJECTIVES:The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) bridged to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus heart transplantation (HT) using registry data. BACKGROUND:Patients with heart failure supported with ECMO represent the highest priority in the new HT allocation system. For patients on ECMO, bridging to LVAD may be non-inferior compared with bridging to HT. METHODS:Adult patients in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) from 2006 to 2017 and United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2006 to June 2019 requiring ECMO were included. Cause-specific hazard models were created and cumulative incidence functions were calculated with mortality, transplantation, and re-transplantation as competing events. RESULTS:A total of 906 patients received ECMO as bridge to VAD (n = 587, 64.8%) or as bridge to HT (n = 319, 35.2%). Patients bridged directly to HT were younger (age 46.3 ± 15.4 years vs. 52.1 ± 13.2 years; p < 0.001) and more likely to be female (93 [29.2%] vs. 139 [23.7%]; p = 0.022). Patients bridged directly to HT were more likely to have a nonischemic cardiomyopathy, restrictive physiologies, and allograft failure; (p < 0.05 for all). ECMO use increased over time in both UNOS and INTERMACS. There was no significant difference in mortality between groups (Gray's p = 0.581). This remained true even when the analysis was restricted to transplant-listed or eligible patients as well as patients with dilated phenotypes (excluding patients with congenital heart disease, restrictive phenotypes, and allograft failure). CONCLUSIONS:There was no difference in mortality on pump support compared with posttransplant mortality among those bridged from ECMO to LVAD or HT.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed extraordinary strain on global healthcare systems. Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe respiratory or cardiac failure attributed to COVID-19 has been debated due to uncertain survival benefit and the resources required to safely deliver ECMO support. We retrospectively investigated adult patients supported with ECMO for COVID-19 at our institution during the first 80 days following New York City's declaration of a state of emergency. The primary objective was to evaluate survival outcomes in patients supported with ECMO for COVID-19 and describe the programmatic adaptations made in response to pandemic-related crisis conditions. Twenty-two patients with COVID-19 were placed on ECMO during the study period. Median age was 52 years and 18 (81.8%) were male. Twenty-one patients (95.4%) had severe ARDS and seven (31.8%) had cardiac failure. Fifteen patients (68.1%) were managed with venovenous ECMO while 7 (31.8%) required arterial support. Twelve patients (54.5%) were transported on ECMO from external institutions. Twelve patients were discharged alive from the hospital (54.5%). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used successfully in patients with respiratory and cardiac failure due to COVID-19. The continued use of ECMO, including ECMO transport, during crisis conditions was possible even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• aPTT correlates poorly with anti-Xa in COVID-19 patients receiving unfractionated heparin. • aPTT potentially underestimates heparin activity compared with anti-Xa in COVID-19 patients receiving unfractionated heparin. • Elevated fibrinogen levels did not correlate with refractory aPTT in COVID-19 patients.