Search

International audience; Increasing operators’ experience and improvement of the technique have resulted in a drastic reduction in complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with lower surgical risk. In parallel, the procedure was considerably simplified, with a routine default approach including local anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory, percutaneous femoral approach, radial artery as the secondary access, prosthesis implantation without predilatation, left ventricle wire pacing and early discharge. Thus, the “simplified” TAVR adopted in most centers nowadays is a real revolution of the technique. However, simplified TAVR must be accompanied upstream by a rigorous selection of patients who can benefit from a minimalist procedure in order to guarantee its safety. The minimalist strategy must not become dogmatic and careful pre-, per- and post-procedural evaluation of patients with well-defined protocols guarantee optimal care following TAVR. This review aims to evaluate the benefits and limits of the simplified TAVR procedure in a current and future vision.

Background: Novel oral anticoagulants are used in atrial fibrillation. Idarucizumab has been approved for reversal of dabigatran in situations of life-threatening hemorrhage or emergency surgery. Objectives: We report a single center experience of ten patients on dabigatran therapy who were given idarucizumab prior to heart transplantation. Methods & results: The mean plasma concentration of dabigatran prior to reversal was 139 ± 89 ng/ml. Hemoglobin, hematocrit and platelet levels were decreased after surgery. Surgical procedures were successfully performed with no increased risk, especially regarding bleeding complications. All patients were alive after 90 days. Conclusion: Dabigatran reversal with idarucizumab in contexts of emergency surgery/urgent procedures is an attractive and safe option to be taken into consideration for patients with end stage heart disease awaiting transplantation and indication of anticoagulant therapy.

Critically ill patients with systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs) have a fair prognosis, while those with interstitial lung disease (ILD) have a poorer outcome. However, the prognosis of SRD patients with ILD admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) remains unclear. We conducted a case–control study to investigate the outcomes of critically ill SRD-ILD patients. Consecutive SRD-ILD patients admitted to five ICUs from January 2007 to December 2017 were compared to SRD patients without ILD. Mortality rates were compared between groups, and prognostic factors were then identified. One hundred and forty critically ill SRD patients were included in the study. Among the 70 patients with SRD–ILD, the SRDs were connective tissue diseases (56%), vasculitis (29%), sarcoidosis (13%), and spondylarthritis (3%). Patients were mainly admitted for acute exacerbation of SRD-ILD (36%) or infection (34%). ICU, in-hospital, and one-year mortality rates in SRD-ILD patients were higher than in SRD patients without ILD (n = 70): 40% vs. 16% (p &lt, 0.01), 49% vs. 19% (p &lt, 0.01), and 66% vs. 40% (p &lt, 0.01), respectively. Hypoxemia, high sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and admission for ILD acute exacerbation were associated with ICU mortality. In conclusion, ILD worsened the outcomes of SRD patients admitted to the ICU. Admissions related to SRD-ILD acute exacerbation and the severity of the acute respiratory failure were associated with ICU mortality.

International audience; Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) is recommended for patients with profound cardiogenic shock (CS). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Impella are possible TCS devices, but the device choice and the implantation timing are not definitely established, specifically during acute myocardial infarction. We have analyzed the respective use of ECMO or Impella (2.5, CP, or 5.0) for CS following acute myocardial infarction , from a cohort of patients who underwent TCS within 72 hours after admission for emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2009 to April 2015. Among 88 TCS-treated patients, 42 had early TCS: 23 ECMO and 19 Impella. Cardiac management, including PCI, was similar between the two groups, but ECMO patients were sicker than Impella patients (higher blood lactate level at ICU admission, higher vasoactive-inotroic and ENCOURAGE scores before TCS implantation, p ≤ 0.02). Three patients (7%) have had TCS implantation before admission, but TCS was implanted mostly in cathlab (43%, 1 during PCI, 13 just after PCI) or soon after ICU admission (50%, n = 21). Modification of the initial TCS choice was required in 10 cases (24%) for assistance upgrading in case of Impella (n = 4) or for left ventricle unloading in case of ECMO (n = 6). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is the technique of choice in case of profound CS, whereas Impella devices seem more appropriate for less severe hemodynamic compromise. Interestingly, the combination of both techniques may help to overcome the limits inherent to each device.

International audience; Peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) exposes the patient to a pulmonary blood flow bypass and a left ventricle afterload increase. Impella, a catheter-mounted microaxial rotary pump, has been proposed for left ventricle (LV) unloading in combination with VA ECMO. In order to assess the effect of Impella on pulmonary flow and LV preload, we checked Doppler pulmonary artery velocity-time integral (pVTI) and LV diastolic diameter (LVED) by transesophageal echocardiography and end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2) during a step-by-step increase in Impella flow (Impella ramp test). From 134 patients on VA ECMO retrieved from our database, 27 (20%) have benefited secondary Impella implantation, out of which 11 patients had available EtCO2, pVTI, and LVED measurements at various levels of Impella speeds. We observed a proportional increases in pVTI and EtCO2 and decrease in LVED (p ≤ 0.001) during Impella flow increase. There was a significant correlation between EtCO2 and ITV pulm (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.64; p = 0.006). The study shows that Impella improves pulmonary flow, an effect that can be easily measured by EtCO2 monitoring, and ensures LV discharge, allowing adapting Impella flow adequately to patient's individual needs.

IntroductionCardiogenic shock refractory to standard therapy with inotropes and/or intra-aortic balloon pump is accompanied with an unacceptable high mortality. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices may provide a survival benefit for these very sick patients. In this study, we describe our experience with the Impella 5.0 device used in the setting of refractory cardiogenic shock.MethodsIn this observational, retrospective, single-center study we included all the consecutive patients supported with Impella 5.0, between May 2008 and December 2013, for refractory cardiogenic shock. Patients’ baseline and procedural characteristics, hemodynamics and outcome to the first 48 h of support, to ICU discharge and day-28 visit were collected.ResultsA total of 40 patients were included in the study. Median age was 57 years and 87.5 % were male. Cardiogenic shock resulted from acute myocardial infarction in 17 patients (43 %), dilated cardiomyopathy in 12 (30 %) and postcardiotomy cardiac failure in 7 (18 %). In 15 patients Impella 5.0 was added to an ECMO to unload the left ventricle. The median SOFA score for the entire cohort prior to circulatory support was 12 [10–14] and the duration of Impella support was 7 [5–10] days. We observed a significant decrease of the inotrope score (10 [1–17] vs. 1 [0–9];p = 0.04) and the lactate values (3.8 [1.7–5.9] mmol/L vs. 2.5 [1.5–3.4] mmol/L;p = 0.01) after 6 h of support with Impella 5.0. Furthermore, at Impella removal the patients’ left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly (p p = 0.02).ConclusionsImpella 5.0 allowed fast weaning of inotropes and might facilitate myocardial recovery. Despite high severity scores at admission, day-28 mortality rate was better than predicated.