Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock

Background Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit. Methods Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality. Results N  = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5–72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6–8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15–30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85–2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction- p  = 0.017). Conclusion This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit–risk ratio

Challenges and possibilities of developing cardiac surgery in a peripheral hospital of low- and middle-income countries

Objective: Over a million cardiac surgeries are performed every year around the globe. However, approximately 93% of world population living in low- and middle-income countries have no access to cardiac surgery. The incidence of rheumatic and congenital heart disease is high in Nepal, while only 2,500-3,000 cardiac surgeries are performed annually. The aim of our study is to analyze challenges and opportunities of establishing a cardiac surgery program in a peripheral hospital of Nepal. Methods: We analyzed our effort to establish a cardiac surgery program in a peripheral hospital in Nepal. Results: Out of 2,659 consulted and diagnosed patients, we performed 85 open-heart surgeries in 4 years. Mean age of patients was 38.35 ± 14.13 years. The majority of patients were male (62.4% of patients) with 65.9% suffering from rheumatic heart disease. Average intensive care unit stay and hospital stay were 2.32 ± 1.1 and 8.29 ± 2.75 days, respectively. No in-hospital mortality was observed. Conclusion: We conclude that developing cardiac surgical care in a peripheral hospital of a developing country is feasible with support from government, foreign colleagues, local teams, and non-governmental organizations. The availability of a regular cardiac surgery service in the periphery of the country makes such services more accessible for the patients and helps in reducing the long waiting lists and unmanageable workload in the established cardiac centers in the capital city. </jats:sec

Effects of implanting a long-term left ventricle assist device on post-transplant outcomes

Background: An increasing number of patients are receiving left ventricle assist devices as a bridge to heart transplantation. The aim of this study was to determine the difference between patients who received transplants from a left ventricle assist device and those who underwent heart transplantation without a prior left ventricle assist device implantation. Material and methods: The study included patients who underwent heart transplantation in our institute between January 2010 and November 2018. The following clinical variables were evaluated: donor characteristics, patient’s pre-transplant demographical data, post-transplant data, and patient survival. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy progression was prospectively examined (after 1 month and 12 months after heart transplantation) by coronary optical coherence tomography. We were interested in the difference in 1- and 5-year survival between the left ventricle assist device and non-left ventricle assist device groups. Results: A total of 248 patients were identified; out of them, 48 patients received a left ventricle assist device before heart transplantation, whereas 200 had transplants with no prior left ventricle assist device implantation. There were no significant differences in any donor characteristics. The mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass time in the non-left ventricle assist device group was 156 versus 175 min in the left ventricle assist device group ( p = 0.009), blood loss was 650 versus 1045 mL ( p &lt; 0.001), the need to implant an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was 10% versus 23% ( p = 0.02). There was no difference in cardiac allograft vasculopathy progression between the groups 1 year after heart transplantation ( p = 0.528). The 1- and 5-year survival, according to Kaplan–Meier, was 80% and 70% in the left ventricle assist device group, compared to 80% and 73%, respectively, in the non-left ventricle assist device group (Log-rank test: p = 0.945). Conclusion: Our results indicate that patients undergoing heart transplantation from left ventricle assist devices suffer significantly more from intraoperative and post-operative complications; however, only insignificant cardiac allograft vasculopathy progression and survival differences between the two groups were observed. </jats:sec