Background: There has been an increasing incidence of right-sided infective endocarditis (RSIE) due to the global rise of intravenous drug use (IVDU) and an increasing number of implantable cardiac electronic devices and central venous catheters. Our aim was to investigate differences in the clinical presentation, microbiological findings and prognosis of patients undergoing surgery for RSIE compared to left-sided infective endocarditis (LSIE). Methods: Relevant clinical data of all 432 consecutive patients undergoing valve surgery for infective endocarditis (IE) at our institution between January 2009 and December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Acquired data included patients' demographic and preoperative comorbidities, manifestation of IE according to the recently modified Duke Criteria, perioperative data and relevant clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 403 patients (93.3%) underwent surgery for LSIE and twenty-nine patients (6.7%) for RSIE. Eleven patients with RSIE (37.9%) showed a concomitant left-sided infection. Compared to LSIE, RSIE patients were significantly younger [47.5 (40.4-69.3) vs. 65.1 (53.7-74.6); P=0.008] and presented with less comorbidities such as hypertension (41.4% vs. 65.3%; P=0.010) and coronary artery disease (6.9% vs. 29.0%; P=0.010). Rates of IVDU (34.5% vs. 4.5%; P<0.001), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (10.3%vs. 1.7%; P=0.023) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (24.1% vs. 5.2%; P=0.001) were greater in RSIE.The proportion of Staphylococcus aureus IE was significantly higher in RSIE compared to LSIE (37.9% vs. 21.1%; P=0.035). 30-day mortality was 6.9% after surgery for RSIE compared to 14.6% after operation for LSIE (P=0.372). Conclusions:Patients undergoing surgery for RSIE compared to LSIE presented with a higher rate of pulmonary septic emboli, more Staphylococcus aureus infections and larger vegetations. Larger multicenter prospective trials are needed to provide more reliable data on the clinical profile of these patients, in order to determine optimal surgical management.

No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

Background: Mortality and morbidity after surgical repair for complex congenital heart defects and severe cardiopulmonary failure on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support remain high despite significant advances in medical management and technological improvements. We report on outcomes and factors after using ECMO in our surgical pediatric population including short-and long-term survival. Methods: A total of 45 neonatal and pediatric patients were identified who needed ECMO in our department between January 2008 and December 2016. In 41 cases (91%) a vaECMO (ECLS) was implemented, whereas 4 patients (9%) received vvECMO treatment for respiratory failure. In 33 cases vaECMO was implanted following cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease (CHD), whereas in 8 patients ECMO was utilized by means of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) following refractory cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint of the present study was survival to discharge and long-term survival free from neurological impairments. Univariate and bivariate analysis was performed to address predictors for outcome. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to address mid-and long-term survival. Results: Median [IQR] duration of ECMO support was 3 [2, 5] days (range, 1-17 days). Median age at ECMO implantation was 128 [14, 1,813] days, median weight of patients was 5.4 [3.3, 12] kg. Totally 10 patients included in this study were diagnosed with concomitant genetic conditions. A total of 20 (44%) patients were successfully weaned off ECMO (survived >24 h after ECMO explantation), whereas 15 (33%) of them survived to discharge. Single ventricle (SV) repair was performed in 14, biventricular repair in 19 patients. Neonates (<30 days of age), female patients, patients with genetic conditions, SV repair patients, and eCPR patient cohort showed lower odds of survival on ECMO. Failed myocardial recovery (P=0.001), profound circulatory failure despite a high dose of catecholamines (P<0.001), neurological impairment pre-ECMO and post-ECMO (P=0.04 and P<0.001, respectively), and severe pulmonary failure despite high respiratory pressure settings were most common mortality reasons. Conclusions: ECMO provides efficient therapy opportunities for life-threatening conditions. Nevertheless, neonates and pediatric patients who underwent ECMO were at high risk for cerebrovascular events and poor survival. Appropriate patient selection using predictors of outcome reducing complications might improve outcomes of this patient cohort.

Background: Stanford A acute aortic dissection (AAD) is a life-threatening emergency associated with major morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of three different surgical approaches in patients with Stanford A AAD. Methods: From January 2006 to March 2015 a total of 240 consecutive patients with diagnosed Stanford A AAD underwent elective, isolated surgical aortic repair in our centre. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of surgical repair: isolated replacement of the ascending aorta, hemiarch replacement and total arch replacement. Patients were followed up for up to 9 years. After univariate analysis multinomial logistic regression was performed for subgroup analysis. Baseline characteristics and endpoints as well as long-term survival were analysed. Results: There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of demographics and preoperative baseline and clinical characteristics. Incidence of in-hospital stroke (p = 0.034), need for reopening due to bleeding (p = 0.031) and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.017) increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. There was no statistical difference in terms of long-term survival (p = 0.166) among the three groups. Applying multinomial logistic regression for subgroup analysis significantly higher odds for stroke (p = 0.023), reopening for bleeding (p = 0.010) and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.009) for the arch surgery group in comparison to the ascending aorta surgery group as well as significantly higher odds for stroke (p = 0.029) for the total arch surgery group in comparison to the hemiarch surgery group were identified. Conclusions: With Stanford A AAD the incidence of perioperative complications increased significantly with the extent of the surgical approach. Subgroup analysis and long-term follow up in patients undergoing isolated ascending or hemiarch surgery showed a lower incidence of cerebrovascular events compared with surgery for total arch replacement.

Objectives: Central or peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va ECMO) is widely used in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS). Available data suggest controversial results for both types. Our aim was to investigate PCS patients treated with either peripheral (pECMO) or central ECMO (cECMO) concerning their outcome. Methods: Between April 2006 and October 2016, 156 consecutive patients with va ECMO therapy due to PCS were identified and included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into cECMO and pECMO groups. Statistical analysis of risk factors concerning 30-day mortality of the mentioned patient cohort was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics.Results: Fifty-six patients received cECMO and 100 patients were treated with pECMO due to PCS. In the group of cECMO peripheral vascular disease was significantly more present (cECMO 19 [34%] vs pECMO 14 [14%]; P < .01). On-site ECMO complications occurred significantly more frequent in patients treated with cECMO (cECMO 44 [79%] vs pECMO 54 [54%] g/dL; P < 0.01). More often cECMO patients required a second look operation due to mediastinal bleeding (cECMO 52 [93%] vs pECMO 61 [61%] g/dL; P < .01). Thirty-day mortality was comparable with nearly 70% in both cohorts (cECMO 39 [70%] vs pECMO 69 [69%]; P = .93).Conclusion: Patients supported by cECMO or pECMO due to refractory PCS did not show significant differences in 30-day mortality, despite a lower incidence of on-site ECMO complications and re-exploration in pECMO patients. PCS itself is associated with high mortality and peripheral cannulation might help to save resources compared with central cannulation. K E Y W O R D S central ECMO, peripheral ECMO, postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, va ECMO Ilija Djordjevic and Kaveh Eghbalzadeh contributed equally to this study.

Background Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is a rapidly growing treatment strategy due to increasing survival rates in selected patients. Additional left ventricular mechanical unloading, using a transfemoral micro‐axial blood pump (Impella® Denver, Massachusetts, USA), might improve patients’ outcomes. In this regard, we sought to investigate patients who suffered OHCA (out‐of hospital cardiac arrest) or IHCA (in‐hospital cardiac arrest) with subsequent eCPR via VA‐ECMO (veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) and concomitant Impella® implantation based on survival and feasibility of ECMO weaning. Methods From January 2016 until December 2020, 108 patients underwent eCPR at our institution. Data prior to eCPR and early outcome parameters were analyzed comparing patients who were supported with an additional Impella® (2.5 or CP) (ECMO+Impella®, n = 18) and patients without additional (ECMO, n = 90) support during V‐A ECMO therapy. The primary endpoint was in‐hospital mortality; secondary endpoints were, among others: ECMO explantation, need for hemodialysis, stroke, and need for blood transfusions. Results Low‐flow time was significantly lower in the ECMO+Impella group (60 min vs. 55 min, p = .01). All‐cause mortality was significantly lower in the ECMO+Impella® group (82% vs. 56%, p = .01). The time of circulatory support was shorter in the ECMO cohort (2.0 ± 1.73 vs. 4.76 ± 2.88 p = .05). ECMO decannulation was significantly more feasible in patients with ECMO+Impella® (72% vs. 32%, p = .01). Patients treated with additional Impella® showed significantly more acute kidney injury with the need for dialysis (72% vs. 18%, p ≤ .01). Conclusion Concomitant Impella® support might positively influence survival and ECMO weaning in eCPR patients. Treatment‐associated complications such as the need for dialysis were more common in this highly selected patient group. Further studies with larger numbers are necessary to evaluate the clinical relevance of concomitant LV‐unloading in eCPR patients using an Impella® device.