Search

Background The HeartMate II (HMII) is a high speed, axial flow, rotary blood pump that restores systemic flow by draining blood from the left ventricular (LV) apex and ejecting into the aortic root. This LV assist device was previously used in patients with medically refractory advanced-stage heart failure, for both destination therapy and bridge to transplantation until the introduction of HeartMate III. Case summary We report herein a case of a 25-year-old patient with Interagency Registry for Mechanical Assisted circulatory 3 profile implanted with HMII device for an end-stage dilated cardiomyopathy, who experienced a pump thrombosis despite a well-conducted anticoagulant protocol. A thrombophilia with heterozygous mutation of factor II and V was diagnosed at that time. We chose to stop the device without explantation until heart transplantation. Discussion Pump thrombosis with HMII is associated with a prohibitive risk of morbidity and mortality. Pump thrombosis is suspected when haemolysis or congestive heart failure occurs, also in cases of overconsumption of pump power (>10 W). Pump thrombosis treatment is challenging in the case of clotting factors mutation. Pump exchange could be ineffective, exposing the patient to the recurrence of thrombo-embolic events. Intravenous thrombolysis may be used for patients not candidates for redo procedures but could be unsuccessful and expose patients to high bleeding risk. Heart transplantation remains a reliable option. In our case, pump explantation was considered too hazardous by the heart team due to a prohibitive risk of redo surgery. Then, we decided to turn off the HMII pump after the introduction of continuous intravenous dobutamine support. The haemodynamic stability allowed us to wait for heart transplantation in favourable conditions.

Purpose: To evaluate whether a perioperative open-lung ventilation strategy prevents postoperative pulmonary complications after elective on-pump cardiac surgery.Methods: In a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial, we assigned patients planned for on-pump cardiac surgery to either a conventional ventilation strategy with no ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and lower perioperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (2 cm H2O) or an open-lung ventilation strategy that included maintaining ventilation during CPB along with perioperative recruitment maneuvers and higher PEEP levels (8 cm H2O). All study patients were ventilated with low-tidal volumes before and after CPB (6 to 8 ml/kg of predicted body weight). The primary end point was a composite of pulmonary complications occurring within the first 7 postoperative days.Results: Among 493 randomized patients, 488 completed the study (mean age, 65.7 years; 360 (73.7%) men; 230 (47.1%) underwent isolated valve surgery). Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 133 of 243 patients (54.7%) assigned to open-lung ventilation and in 145 of 245 patients (59.2%) assigned to conventional ventilation (p = 0.32). Open-lung ventilation did not significantly reduce the use of high-flow nasal oxygenotherapy (8.6% vs 9.4%; p = 0.77), non-invasive ventilation (13.2% vs 15.5%; p = 0.46) or new invasive mechanical ventilation (0.8% vs 2.4%, p = 0.28). Mean alive ICU-free days at postoperative day 7 was 4.4 ± 1.3 days in the open-lung group vs 4.3 ± 1.3 days in the conventional group (mean difference, 0.1 ± 0.1 day, p = 0.51). Extra-pulmonary complications and adverse events did not significantly differ between groups.Conclusions: A perioperative open-lung ventilation including ventilation during CPB does not reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications as compared with usual care. This finding does not support the use of such a strategy in patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02866578. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02866578.

Importance Low cardiac output syndrome after cardiac surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality in patients with impaired left ventricular function. Objective To assess the ability of preoperative levosimendan to prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 13 French cardiac surgical centers. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and scheduled for isolated or combined coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass were enrolled from June 2013 until May 2015 and followed during 6 months (last follow-up, November 30, 2015). Interventions Patients were assigned to a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan 0.1 µg/kg/min (n = 167) or placebo (n = 168) initiated after anesthetic induction. Main Outcomes and Measures Composite end point reflecting low cardiac output syndrome with need for a catecholamine infusion 48 hours after study drug initiation, need for a left ventricular mechanical assist device or failure to wean from it at 96 hours after study drug initiation when the device was inserted preoperatively, or need for renal replacement therapy at any time postoperatively. It was hypothesized that levosimendan would reduce the incidence of this composite end point by 15% in comparison with placebo. Results Among 336 randomized patients (mean age, 68 years; 16% women), 333 completed the trial. The primary end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimendan group and 101 patients (61%) in the placebo group (absolute risk difference taking into account center effect, −7% [95% CI, −17% to 3%]; P = .15). Predefined subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and preoperative use of β-blockers, intra-aortic balloon pump, or catecholamines. The prevalence of hypotension (57% vs 48%), atrial fibrillation (50% vs 40%), and other adverse events did not significantly differ between levosimendan and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, levosimendan compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of left ventricular mechanical assist device, or renal replacement therapy. These findings do not support the use of levosimendan for this indication. Trial Registration EudraCT Number:2012-000232-25; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT02184819

Introduction The aim of this study was to collect data in France in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia who required parenteral anticoagulation and for whom other non-heparin anticoagulant therapies were contraindicated including patients with renal failure, cross-reactivity to danaparoid or at high hemorrhagic risk. Methods A total of 20 patients, of mean age 72 ± 10 years, were enrolled in this open-label, multicenter clinical study. Exploratory statistical data analysis was performed with descriptive interpretation of intra-individual comparisons using simple univariate statistics. Results The diagnosis of HIT was confirmed in 16 subjects by an independent scientific committee. Fourteen patients (70 %) were in an intensive care unit during the course of the study. Patients were treated with argatroban for a mean duration of 8.5 ± 6.1 days. The mean starting dose of argatroban was 0.77 ± 0.45 μg/kg/min. Platelet recovery was rapid. aPTT and anti-IIa activity assays were used to monitor the dose of argatroban. The mean baseline aPTT value was 45.0 ± 9.8 sec and increased to 78.2 ± 35.8 sec two hours after initiating argatroban. At this time mean argatroban concentration was 0.34 ± 0.16 and 0.61 ± 0.28 μg/ml using ECT and TT measurements, respectively. New and/or extended thromboses were reported in 25 % of patients and major bleedings were documented in 15 %. Six patients died due to their underlying medical condition. Conclusion Considering its hepatic elimination and its short half-life, argatroban can be considered as a safe therapeutic option in HIT patients at high hemorrhagic risk and with renal failure, particularly in an ICU setting.

Objective: The utility of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) as early substitutes for dobutamine was studied after cardiac surgery in patients with preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤0.4. Design: Randomized, prospective study. Settings: University hospital. Participants: Thirty-four patients with preoperative LVEF ≤0.4 undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Interventions: Patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups before the operation. Group R patients treated with ACE-Is received ramipril, 1.25 mg twice a day, from the day after the operation (D2), and group C did not receive ACE-Is. In both groups, the withdrawal from dobutamine started at D3. Measurements and Main Results: NT-BNP levels were determined before (T0), immediately after surgery (T1), and on the next 4 days (T2, T3, T4, and T5). Creatinine values were recorded before surgery, at the second day, and at the discharge from the intensive care unit. In both groups, baseline NT-BNP levels were high, although not significantly different, and increased postoperatively until T5. This increase was more pronounced in group C (p = 0.037 and 0.008 at T3 and T4, respectively). ACE-Is were well tolerated in all patients in group R. Conclusions: ACE-Is can be used as a dobutamine substitute as early as the first postoperative day after cardiac surgery without renal consequences. Ramipril was beneficial in patients with left ventricular dysfunction as shown by NT-BNP levels that were lower in group R.