Search

Background: Cardiac surgery is considered a contraindication in patients with advanced liver cirrhosis (LC) due to increased mortality and morbidity. There are limited data on the treatment strategy and management of this population. We aimed to present our strategy and evaluate the clinical outcome of cardiac surgery in patients with LC. Methods: Our strategy was (i) to list patients for liver transplant (LT) at the time of cardiac surgery; (ii) to maintain high cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) flow (index up to 3.0 L/min/m2) based on hyper‐dynamic states due to LC; and (iii) to proceed to LT if patients' liver function deteriorated with an increasing model for end‐stage liver disease Na (MELD‐Na) score after cardiac surgery. Thirteen patients (12 male and 1 female [mean age, 63.0]) with LC who underwent cardiac surgery between 2017 and 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Six patients were listed for LT. Indications for cardiac surgery included coronary artery disease (N = 7), endocarditis (N = 2), and tricuspid regurgitation (N = 1), tricuspid stenosis (N = 1), mitral regurgitation (N = 1), and hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (N = 1). The Child–Pugh score was A in five, B in six, and C in one patient. The procedure included coronary artery bypass grafting (N = 6), single valve surgery (mitral valve [N = 2] and tricuspid valve [N = 1]), concomitant aortic and tricuspid valve surgery (N = 2), and septal myectomy (N = 1). Two patients had a history of previous sternotomy. The perfusion index during CPB was 3.1 ± 0.5 L/min/m2. Postoperative complications include pleural effusion (N = 6), bleeding events (N = 3), acute kidney injury (N = 1), respiratory failure requiring tracheostomy (N = 2), tamponade (N = 1), and sternal infection (N = 1). There was no in‐hospital death. There was one remote death due to COVID‐19 complication. Preoperative and postoperative highest MELD‐Na score among listed patients was 15.8 ± 5.1 and 19.3 ± 5.3, respectively. Five patients underwent LT (1, 5, 8, 16, and 24 months following cardiac surgery) and one patient remains on the list. Survival rates at 1 and 3 years are 100% and 75.0%, respectively. Conclusion: Cardiac surgery maintaining high CPB flow with LT backup is a feasible strategy in an otherwise inoperable patient population with an acceptable early and midterm survival when performed in a center with an experienced cardiac surgery and LT program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The axillary artery (AX) access for intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) as a bridge to heart transplant (HT) allows mobility while awaiting a suitable donor. As end‐stage heart failure patients often have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) on the left side, the left AX approach may be avoided due to the perception of difficult access and proximity of two devices. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients bridged to HT with a left‐sided AX IABP with or without ipsilateral ICDs. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed HT candidates at our institution supported by left‐sided axillary IABP from November 2019 to February 2024, dividing them into two groups based on the presence (Group ICD, n = 48) or absence (Group No‐ICD, N = 19) of an ipsilateral left‐sided ICD. The exposure time was defined as the time from skin incision to the beginning of anastomoses of a Dacron graft. Results: Technical success was achieved in 100% of the cohort, with median exposure times for AX access similar between groups (ICD, 12 [7.8, 18.2] vs. No ICD, 11 [7, 19] min; p = 0.75). The rate of procedural adverse events, such as significant access site bleeding and ipsilateral limb ischemia, did not significantly differ between both groups. Device malfunction rates were comparable (ICD, 29.2% vs. No ICD, 15.8%; p = 0.35). Posttransplant, in‐hospital mortality, severe primary graft dysfunction, and stroke rates were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: The presence of an ipsilateral left‐sided ICD does not adversely impact the procedural efficacy, complication rates, or posttransplant outcomes of left‐sided AX IABP insertion in HT candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe mitral regurgitation (MR) is an important cause of acute heart failure and significant contributor to morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices such as Impella are readily used to hemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) secondary to this valvular pathology. Impella can also be combined with VA-ECMO to an "ECPELLA" configuration if further escalation of hemodynamic support is needed. We report a case of a 57-year-old female who presented with CS secondary to a perforated anterior mitral valve leaflet and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy that did not stabilize with initial choice of Impella 5.5. She required further escalation from axillary Impella 5.5 to the combined ECPELLA configuration, which allowed hemodynamic stabilization and ultimately a successful high-risk isolated mitral valve replacement. Despite adequate Impella flow, escalation to a combined MCS configuration, such as ECPELLA, may need to be considered upfront for acute valvular insufficiency in the setting of pre-existing cardiomyopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the growing population of advanced heart failure, the use of Impella 5.5 has been increasing. Here, we report an effective strategy of removing the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in the setting of escalation of support to Impella 5.5. Results: From January 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022, a total of 6 patients have undergone IABP removal during Impella 5.5 insertion. The IABP was subsequently removed over the long wire with manual compression on the femoral artery to control bleeding. An 8 or 9 Fr short sheath is inserted over the wire. Staged hemostasis was successfully performed in 4 patients, and the remaining two patients required escalation of support to veno-arterial membrane oxygenation as EC-PELLA utilizing the femoral arterial sheath. Conclusion: This does not only achieve secured hemostasis but also enables a smooth transition to further escalate support such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, if necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about safety and efficacy of the use of Impella 5.5 compared to previous iterations in the setting of Impella with Veno‐Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support as ECPELLA. Methods: Consecutive patients who were treated by ECPELLA with surgically implanted axillary Impella 5.5 (N = 13) were compared with patients supported by ECPELLA with percutaneous femoral Impella CP or 2.5 (Control, N = 13). Results: The total ECPELLA flow was higher in ECPELLA 5.5 group (6.9 vs. 5.4 L/min, p = 0.019). Actual hospital survival was higher than predicted and comparable in both groups (ECPELLA 5.5, 61.5% vs. Control, 53.8%, p = 0.691). Both total device complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 7.7% vs. Control, 46.1%, p = 0.021) and Impella‐specific complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 0% vs. Control, 30.8%, p = 0.012) were significantly lower in the ECPELLA 5.5 group. Conclusions: Utilization of Impella 5.5 in the setting of ECPELLA provides greater hemodynamic support with a lower risk of complications compared to Impella CP or 2.5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]