Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) is widely used to treat refractory cardiogenic shock. However, increased left ventricular (LV) afterload in VA-ECLS can worsen pulmonary congestion and compromise myocardial recovery. Our objectives were to explore the efficacy, safety, and optimal timing of adjunctive LV venting strategies. Methods: A systematic search was performed on Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, CDSR, CCRCT, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and WHO ICTRP from inception until January 2019 for all relevant studies, including LV venting. Data were analyzed for mortality and weaning from VA-ECLS on the basis of timing of LV venting, along with adverse complications. Results: A total of 7995 patients were included from 62 observational studies, wherein 3458 patients had LV venting during VA-ECLS. LV venting significantly improved weaning from VA-ECLS (odds ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47–0.83]; P =0.001) and reduced short-term (30 day; risk ratio [RR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.77–0.96]; P =0.008) but not in-hospital (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83–1.01] P =0.09) or long-term (6 months; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90–1.03]; P =0.27) mortality. Early (<12 hours; RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75–0.99]; P =0.03) but not late (≥12 hours; RR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.71–1.38]; P =0.93) LV venting significantly reduced short-term mortality. Patients with LV venting spent more time on VA-ECLS (3.6 versus 2.8 days, P <0.001), and mechanical ventilation (7.1 versus 4.6 days, P =0.013). With the exception of hemolysis (RR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.58–3.01]; P <0.00001), overall adverse events did not differ. Conclusions: LV venting, especially if done early (<12 hours), appears to be associated with an increased success of weaning and reduced short-term mortality. Future studies are required to delineate the importance of any or early LV venting adjuncts on mortality and morbidity outcomes.

No abstract

This pilot trial demonstrates the safety of and feasibility of a larger trial powered to detect clinically relevant short- and long-term outcomes of concomitant left atrial appendage exclusion with open mitral valve surgery.

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID‐19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID‐19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID‐19 cases, mostly in veno‐venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno‐arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient’s recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID‐19‐induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID‐19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID‐19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID‐19 benefitted from ECLS.

No abstract