Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease and has a dismal prognosis without surgical treatment. The aim of this meta‐analysis was to quantitatively assess the comparative effectiveness of the Perceval (LivaNova) valve versus conventional aortic bioprostheses. Methods and Results: A total of 6 comparative studies were identified, including 639 and 760 patients who underwent, respectively, aortic valve replacement with the Perceval sutureless valve (P group) and with a conventional bioprosthesis (C group). Aortic cross‐clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were significantly lower in the P group. No difference in postoperative mortality was shown for the P and C groups (2.8% versus 2.7%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [95% confidence interval ( CI ), 0.52–1.88]; P =0.98). Incidence of postoperative renal failure was lower in the P group compared with the C group (2.7% versus 5.5%; OR: 0.45 [95% CI , 0.25–0.80]; P =0.007). Incidence of stroke (2.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 1.34 [95% CI , 0.56–3.21]; P =0.51) and paravalvular leak (3.1% versus 1.6%; OR : 2.52 [95% CI , 0.60–1.06]; P =0.21) was similar, whereas P group patients received fewer blood transfusions than C group patients (1.16±1.2 versus 2.13±2.2; mean difference: 0.99 [95% CI , −1.22 to −0.75]; P =0.001). The incidence of pacemaker implantation was higher in the P than the C group (7.9% versus 3.1%; OR : 2.45 [95% CI , 1.44–4.17]; P =0.001), whereas hemodynamic Perceval performance was better (transvalvular gradient 23.42±1.73 versus 22.8±1.86; mean difference: 0.90 [95% CI , 0.62–1.18]; P =0.001), even during follow‐up (10.98±5.7 versus 13.06±6.2; mean difference: −2.08 [95% CI , −3.96 to −0.21]; P =0.030). We found no difference in 1‐year mortality. Conclusions: The Perceval bioprosthesis improves the postoperative course compared with conventional bioprostheses and is an option for high‐risk patients.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) is a rescue treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failing protective mechanical ventilation. It temporarily provides proper gas exchange: hypoxia is treated by adjusting the blood flow rate and fraction in spired oxygen over the ventilator (FiO₂) on the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuit while CO₂ removal is regulated by the ECMO fresh gas flow. Therefore, ventilator settings can be gradually reduced allowing the lungs to rest and recover. Nowadays, indications for ECMO referral and implantation are clearly formulated; on the contrary, little evidence currently exists to guide the process of weaning from ECMO support, especially concerning the timing during the course of lung healing. Therefore, indications to stop ECMO are less well standardized so that in clinical trials extracorporeal assistance is generally continued until lung recovery, with neither specific nor homogenous criteria for withdrawal. Notably, in almost all papers dealing with data on VV ECMO support, the management of weaning and the weaning procedure itself are not described. The aim of this paper is to make a picture of VV ECMO weaning, as it is performed in three European large volume intensive care units (ICUs) which represent referral centers for VV ECMO treatment. We focused on data concerning the timing of VV ECMO weaning and parameters at the time of weaning, in order to assess adequacy and safety of VV ECMO removal.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is currently a widely used therapeutic strategy. However, patients are often still hypoxemic despite complete ECMO support. The major determinants of peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) during VV ECMO are pump flow, degree of recirculation, patient's systemic venous return and its oxygen saturation, hemoglobin concentration and residual lung function. Current guidelines state that the support can be considered adequate when the patient's SpO2 is equal or greater than 80%, but a possible objection could be that such a value of O2-tension may be too low and may worsen the patient's prognosis. Moving from the pathophysiology of hypoxemia during VV ECMO, this review focuses on recirculation of blood and on the possible strategies to minimize it, on the pharmacologic modulation of intrapulmonary shunt and on the questions related to management of ECMO flow and the risks and benefits of permissive hypoxemic states. Transfusional strategy during VV ECMO, administration of neuromuscular blocking agents and sedatives, therapeutic hypothermia, and prone positioning is also reviewed. The potential advantages of β-blockers are discussed. Finally, transition from VV ECMO to venoarterial ECMO (VA ECMO) or a hybrid configuration is also examined.

The role of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy (V-V ECMO) in severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still under debate and conclusive data from large cohorts are scarce. Furthermore, criteria for the selection of patients that benefit most from this highly invasive and resource-demanding therapy are yet to be defined. In this study, we assess survival in an international multicenter cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO and evaluate the performance of several clinical scores to predict 30-day survival. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated retrospective non-interventional international multicenter registry study (NCT04405973, first registered 28 May 2020). In 127 patients treated with V-V ECMO at 15 centers in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and the United States, we calculated the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Score, Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction (RESP) Score, Predicting Death for Severe ARDS on V-V ECMO (PRESERVE) Score, and 30-day survival. Results: In our study cohort which enrolled 127 patients, overall 30-day survival was 54%. Median SOFA, SAPS II, APACHE II, RESP, and PRESERVE were 9, 36, 17, 1, and 4, respectively. The prognostic accuracy for all these scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic—AUROC) ranged between 0.548 and 0.605. Conclusions: The use of scores for the prediction of mortality cannot be recommended for treatment decisions in severe COVID-19 ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO; nevertheless, scoring results below or above a specific cut-off value may be considered as an additional tool in the evaluation of prognosis. Survival rates in this cohort of COVID-19 patients treated with V-V ECMO were slightly lower than those reported in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients treated with V-V ECMO.