No abstract

No abstract

Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used to treat cardiogenic shock. However, VA-ECMO might hamper myocardial recovery. The Impella unloads the left ventricle. The aim of this study was to evaluate if left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO was associated with lower mortality. Methods: Data from 686 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO with or without left ventricular unloading (using an Impella) at 16 tertiary-care centers in 4 countries were collected. The association between left ventricular unloading and 30-day mortality was assessed by Cox regression models in a 1:1 propensity-score-matched cohort. Results: Left ventricular unloading was used in 337 of the 686 patients (49%). After matching, 255 patients with left ventricular unloading were compared with 255 patients without left ventricular unloading. In the matched cohort, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.63-0.98, p=0.03) without differences in various subgroups. Complications occurred more frequently in patients with left ventricular unloading; e.g. severe bleeding in 98 (38.4%) vs. 45 (17.9%), access-site related ischemia in 55 (21.6%) vs. 31 (12.3%), abdominal compartment in 23 (9.4%) vs. 9 (3.7%) and renal replacement therapy in 148 (58.5%) vs. 99 (39.1%). Conclusions: In this international, multicenter cohort study, left ventricular unloading was associated with lower mortality in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO, despite higher complication rates. These findings support use of left ventricular unloading in cardiogenic shock patients treated with VA-ECMO and call for further validation, ideally in a randomized, controlled trial.

laboratory investigations. Conversely, aortic dissection is not often considered a cause of myocardial malperfusion; thus misdiagnosis, which represents one of the main preoperative risks for these patients, may frequently occur. 1 This was the case for our patient, to whom systemic thrombolytic treatment was given before a diagnosis of acute aortic dissection was made.The subsequent surgical treatment was strongly influenced by this inadvertent treatment, which induced us to avoid any prosthetic material to replace the ascending aorta and imposed a closed technique of anastomosis to avoid hypothermic circulatory arrest. It should be said, however, that the limited longitudinal extension of the dissection was well suited to the repair technique.This procedure does not fulfill the radical criteria advocated by some authors in the settings of acute type A dissection. 6 However, it should be underlined that the resection included the entire dissected portion of the aorta and that the parts left in place exhibited a completely normal aspect.

Our results suggest that moderate lower body circulatory arrest can be safely performed for aortic arch repair. In fact, postoperative inflammatory response tended to be lower in patients with moderate lower body circulatory arrest than those with deep lower body circulatory arrest, and deep lower body circulatory arrest was a strong risk factor for reexploration for bleeding.