Department of Cardiac Surgery, Intensive Care Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, Heart Center,
University Hospital Cologne, Kerpenerstr. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany
Prof. Dr. Anton Sabashnikov
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Intensive Care Medicine and Thoracic Surgery, Heart Center,
University Hospital Cologne, Kerpenerstr. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany
The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the effects and functional outcome of central extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with left ventricular decompression for the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock and lung failure.
15 March 2015 in European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
OBJECTIVES Due to organ shortage in lung transplantation (LTx), donation after circulatory death (DCD) has been implemented in several countries, contributing to an increasing number of organs transplanted. We sought to assess long-term outcomes after LTx with organs procured following circulatory death in comparison with those obtained from donors after brain death (DBD). METHODS Between January 2007 and November 2013, 302 LTxs were performed in our institution, whereby 60 (19.9%) organs were retrieved from DCD donors. We performed propensity score matching (DCD:DBD = 1:2) based on preoperative donor and recipient factors that were significantly different in univariate analysis. RESULTS After propensity matching, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of demographics and preoperative donor and recipient characteristics. There were no significant differences regarding intraoperative variables and total ischaemic time. Patients from the DCD group had significantly higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at the end of the procedure (P = 0.014), and significantly lower pO2/FiO2 ratio during the first 24 h after the procedure (P = 0.018). There was a trend towards higher incidence of the need for postoperative extracorporeal life support in the DCD group. Other postoperative characteristics were comparable. While the overall cumulative survival was not significantly different, the DCD group had significantly poorer results in terms of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS)-free survival in the long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Long-term results after LTx with organs procured following DCD are in general comparable with those obtained after DBD LTx. However, patients transplanted using organs from DCD donors have a predisposition for development of BOS in the longer follow-up.
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are fast becoming standard of care for patients with advanced heart failure. However, despite continuous improvement in VAD technology, there remains a significant early postoperative morbidity and mortality in this extreme patient group. The aim of the current study was to explore the short-term outcomes and predictors for 90 day mortality in the patients after implantation of continuous-flow LVAD. Perioperative clinical, echocardiographic, hemodynamic, and laboratory data of 90 day survivors and nonsurvivors were collected and compared retrospectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on univariate predictors for 90 day mortality with an entry criterion of p < 0.1. Between July 2006 and May 2012, 117 patients underwent implantation of a continuous-flow LVAD as a bridge to transplantation: 71 (60.7%) HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, CA) and 46 (39.3%) HVAD (HeartWare International, Framingham, MA). All-cause 90 day mortality was 17.1%. Multivariate analysis revealed higher preoperative central venous pressure (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.014–1.378; p = 0.033) and higher age (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.38; p = 0.045) as the only independent predictors for 90 day mortality. Optimization of preoperative volume status, preload, and right heart function as well as age-based selection of candidates for LVAD support are the critical factors influencing early outcome after continuous-flow LVAD implantation.
10 February 2016 in Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery
Minimally invasive lung transplantation (MILT) via bilateral anterior thoracotomies has emerged as a novel surgical strategy with potential patient benefits when compared with transverse thoracosternotomy (clamshell incision, CS). The aim of this study is to compare MILT with CS by focusing on operative characteristics, postoperative organ function and support and mid-term clinical outcomes at Harefield Hospital. It was a retrospective observational study evaluating all bilateral sequential lung transplants between April 2010 and November 2013. CS was performed in 124 patients and MILT in 70 patients. Skin-to-skin surgical time was less in the MILT group [285 (265, 339) min] compared with CS [380 (306, 565) min] and MILT-cardiopulmonary bypass [426 (360, 478) min]. Ischaemic time was significantly longer (502 ± 116 vs 395 ± 145 min) in the MILT group compared with CS (P < 0.01). Early postoperative physiological variables were similar between groups. Patients in the MILT group required less blood [2 (0, 4) vs 3 (1, 5) units, P = 0.16] and platelet transfusion [0 (0, 1) vs 1 (0, 2) units, P < 0.01]. The median duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter (26 vs 44 h, P < 0.01) and intensive therapy unit stay was 2 days shorter (5 vs 7) in the MILT group. While overall survival was similar, fraction of expired volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were consistently higher in the MILT group compared with CS during mid-term follow-up after transplantation. Specifically, FEV1 and FVC were, respectively, 86 ± 21 and 88 ± 18% predicted in the MILT group compared with 74 ± 21 and 74 ± 19% predicted in the CS group (P < 0.01) at the 6-month follow-up. MILT was successfully introduced at our centre as a novel operative strategy. Despite longer ischaemic times and a more complex operation and management, MILT appears to offer early postoperative and mid-term clinical benefits compared with our traditional approach of clamshell operations. These observations warrant larger definite studies to further evaluate the impact of MILT on physiological, clinical and patient-reported outcomes.