Background Since 2019, European guidelines recommend considering extracorporeal life support as salvage strategy for the treatment of acute high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) with circulatory collapse or cardiac arrest. However, data on long-term survival, quality of life (QoL) and cardiopulmonary function after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are lacking. Methods One hundred and nineteen patients with acute PE and severe cardiogenic shock or in need of mechanical resuscitation (CPR) received venoarterial or venovenous ECMO from 2007 to 2020. Long-term data were obtained from survivors by phone contact and personal interviews. Follow-up included a QoL analysis using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, echocardiography, pulmonary function testing and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Results The majority of patients (n = 80, 67%) were placed on ECMO during or after CPR with returned spontaneous circulation. Overall survival to hospital discharge was 45.4% (54/119). Nine patients died during follow-up. At a median follow-up of 54.5 months (25–73; 56 ± 38 months), 34 patients answered the QoL questionnaire. QoL differed largely and was slightly reduced compared to a German reference population (EQ5D5L index 0.7 ± 0.3 vs. 0.9 ± 0.04; p  < 0.01). 25 patients (73.5%) had no mobility limitations, 22 patients (65%) could handle their activities, while anxiety and depression were expressed by 10 patients (29.4%). Return-to-work status was 33.3% (average working hours: 36.2 ± 12.5 h/per week), 15 (45.4%) had retired from work early. 12 patients (35.3%) expressed limited exercise tolerance and dyspnea. 59% (20/34) received echocardiography and pulmonary function testing, 50% (17/34) cardiopulmonary exercise testing. No relevant impairment of right ventricular function and an only slightly reduced mean peak oxygen uptake (76.3% predicted) were noted. Conclusions Survivors from severe intractable PE in cardiogenic shock or even under CPR with ECMO seem to recover well with acceptable QoL and only minor cardiopulmonary limitations in the long term. To underline these results, further research with larger study cohorts must be obtained.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction Omental flap (OF) is a traditional surgical option to counteract severe postcardiotomy mediastinal infection and to cover extensive sternal defects. We reviewed our experience with omental flap transfer (OFT) in various clinical circumstances, in which omentoplasty may be considered by cardiac surgeons. Methods Twenty-one patients, who underwent OFT from January 2012 to December 2021, were studied. The main indication was treatment of infected foreign material implants including vascular grafts and ventricular assist devices or prevention of its infection (16 patients). In five patients, an OFT was used to cure mediastinitis following deep sternal wound infection after median sternotomy. Results All patients had a high surgical risk with 3 ± 1.9 previous sternotomies and a mean Euro Score II of 55.0 ± 20.1. OF was successful in its prophylactic or therapeutic purpose in all patients, no complications related to the operative procedure were noted, that is, no early or late flap failure and no herniation of abdominal organs occurred. In-hospital mortality was six patients as three patients each died from multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and cerebral hemorrhage. All fifteen patients discharged demonstrated rapid recovery, complete wound healing without fistula, and no late gastrointestinal complications. The mean follow-up of 18 months was uneventful. Conclusion OFT seems to be an excellent solution for extensive mediastinal and deep sternal wound infections.

Objectives Type A aortic dissection with true lumen collapse and malperfusion downstream is associated with a devastating prognosis. This study compares the clinical outcomes of two operative strategies for this disease: hybrid approach of ascending aorta (and hemiarch replacement) supplemented with retrograde stenting of the descending aorta (thoracic endovascular aortic repair [TEVAR]) and standard ascending aorta (and hemiarch) replacement without stent placement. Methods From January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2019, 81 patients with type A aortic dissection were studied. The hybrid technique was applied in 30 patients (group 1), while 51 patients received standard surgical repair (group 2). Patient demographics, clinical and operative findings, postoperative outcome, follow-up interventions, and mid-term survival were analyzed. Results Baseline characteristics were similar among the groups, except that more preoperative malperfusion was evident in group 1. The postoperative incidence of visceral malperfusion (0 vs. 15.7%, p = 0.02) and low cardiac output syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (3.3 vs. 19.6%, p = 0.04) was significantly less in group 1. In-hospital mortality was also significantly lower in group 1 as in group 2 (13.3 vs. 33.3%, p = 0.04). At follow-up, the need for secondary endovascular stenting (3.3 vs. 7.8%, p = 0.65) and surgical aortic reintervention (6.7 vs. 2.0%, p = 0.55) was comparable. One-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival rates were 83.3, 83.3, and 62.5% in group 1, and 58.7, 58.7, and 52.6% in group 2 (p = 0.05), respectively. Conclusion The combination of open surgical replacement of the ascending aorta (and hemiarch) with TEVAR of the descending aorta for true lumen compromise is a feasible treatment option for patients with type A aortic dissection and is associated with a better perioperative outcome and improved mid-term survival rate.