Search

The frequency of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device application has increased in recent years. Besides implantation in the emergency setting, such as circulatory arrest, MCS is also increasingly used electively to ensure hemodynamic stability in high‐risk patients, for example, during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), valve interventions or off‐pump coronary bypass surgery. Lifebridge (Zoll Medical GmbH, Germany) is a compact percutaneous MCS device widely used in daily clinical routine. The present study aimed to investigate the indications, feasibility, and outcomes after use of Lifebridge in cardiac interventions, evaluating a large‐scale multicenter database. A total of 60 tertiary cardiovascular centers were questioned regarding application and short‐term outcomes after the use of the Lifebridge system (n = 160 patients). Out of these 60 centers, eight consented to participate in the study (n = 39 patients), where detailed data were collected using standardized questionnaires. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient population, procedural as well as follow‐up data were recorded and analyzed. In 60 interrogated centers, Lifebridge was used in 74% of emergency cases and 26% in the setting of planned interventions. The subcohort interrogated in detail displayed the same distribution of application scenarios, while the main cardiovascular procedure was high‐risk PCI (82%). All patients were successfully weaned from the device and 92% (n = 36) of the patients studied in detail survived after 30 days. As assessed 30 days after insertion of the device, bleeding requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion constituted the main complication, occurring in 49% of cases. In our analysis of clinical data, the use of Lifebridge in cardiac intervention was shown to be feasible. Further prospective studies are warranted to identify patients who benefit from hemodynamic MCS support despite the increased rate of RBC transfusion due to challenges in access sites during cardiovascular procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is used to sustain blood oxygenation and decarboxylation in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is under debate if V-V ECMO is as appropriate for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) ARDS as it is for influenza. In this retrospective study, we analyzed all patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 or influenza A/B infection, ARDS and V-V ECMO, treated at our medical intensive care unit (ICU) between October 2010 and June 2020. Baseline and procedural characteristics as well as survival 30 days after ECMO cannulation were analyzed. A total of 62 V-V ECMO patients were included (15 with Covid-19 and 47 with influenza). Both groups had similar baseline characteristics at cannulation. Thirty days after ECMO cannulation, 13.3% of all patients with Covid-19 were discharged alive from our ICU compared to 44.7% with influenza (P = .03). Patients with Covid-19 had fewer ECMO-free days (0 (0-9.7) days vs. 13.2 (0-22.1) days; P = .05). Cumulative incidences of 30-day-survival showed no significant differences (48.6% in Covid-19 patients, 63.7% in influenza patients; P = .23). ICU treatment duration was significantly longer in ARDS patients with V-V ECMO for Covid-19 compared to influenza. Thirty-day mortality was higher in Covid-19, but not significant., (© 2020 The Authors. Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Central veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is traditionally implanted using direct cannulation of the aorta and right atrium. We aim to summarize the outcome of patients who underwent perioperative central ECMO implantation using an alternative surgical approach, which allows sternum closure and does not require resternotomy at the time of explantation. We retrospectively reviewed patients who required veno-arterial ECMO support at our institution between January 2013 and July 2014. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing central ECMO implantation using the above-mentioned implantation technique. Nine patients (65 ± 14 years) were supported using this technique. Four patients underwent coronary bypass surgery as a primary surgery and the other five patients had combined coronary and valve surgeries. The average duration of ECMO support was 9 ± 7 days (range 1-24 days). The dominant postoperative complication was renal failure, which occurred in eight patients (89%). In four patients (44%), the ECMO was successfully removed. Survival rate to discharge was 22%. In conclusion, this study showed the feasibility of this alternative ECMO implantation technique. No technical issues were encountered. Extended support duration and reducing resternotomy risks may be the main advantages of this technique compared with conventional ECMO implantation methods., (Copyright © 2015 International Center for Artificial Organs and Transplantation and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)