Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a complex, life-saving procedure that uses mechanical support for patients with refractory cardiac arrest, representing the pinnacle of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) applications. Effective ECPR requires precise patient selection, rapid mobilization of a multidisciplinary team, and skilled cannulation techniques. Establishing a program necessitates a cohesive ECMO system that promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, which is essential for managing acute cardiogenic shock and severe pulmonary failure. ECPR is suited for selected patients, emphasizing the need to optimize every step of cardiac arrest management—from public education to advanced post-resuscitation care. The flexibility of ECMO teams allows them to manage various emergencies such as cardiogenic shock, massive pulmonary embolism, and severe asthma, showcasing the program’s adaptability. Launching an ECPR program involves addressing logistical, financial, and organizational challenges. This includes gaining administrative approval, assembling a diverse team, and crafting detailed protocols and training regimens. The development process entails organizing teams, refining protocols, and training extensively to ensure operational readiness. A systematic approach to building an ECPR program involves establishing a team, defining patient selection criteria, and evaluating caseloads. Critical elements like patient transport protocols and anticoagulation management are vital for the program’s success. In conclusion, initiating an ECPR program demands thorough planning, collaborative effort across specialties, and ongoing evaluation to improve outcomes in critical cardiac emergencies. This guide offers practical insights to support institutions in navigating the complexities of ECPR program development and maintenance.

Cardiac surgery is continuously evolving, with increasing skills required by the cardiac anaesthesiologist. Following the advent of intraoperative echocardiography, we are witnessing a potential new revolution for the cardiac anaesthesiologist. A new era has indeed started with the implementation of thoracic fascial blocks (TFBs) in the field of cardiac surgery. TFBs provide several advantages in the context of multimodal analgesia, with improved pain control and reduction of the side effects related to large doses of opioids. We envisage that implementation of TFBs is likely to become a pivotal concept in the field of enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery. We describe the main TFBs for the anterior and/or antero-lateral chest wall, and their peculiar use in cardiac surgery. In particular, we discuss indications and tips and tricks to enhance clinical results for the following blocks: (1) Pecto-Intercostal Plane (superficial and deep); (2) Rectus Sheath; (3) Interpectoral Plane and Pectoserratus Plane; (4) Serratus Anterior Plane; (5) Erector Spinae Plane. Nonetheless, the scientific evidence for the use of TFBs in the field of cardiac anaesthesia is not robust yet, mostly based on small-sized single-centre studies, making it difficult to achieve a high quality of evidence. Further, it remains unclear which cardiac surgery patients may benefit the most from these techniques.

Placement of central venous catheters (CVCs) is essential and routine practice in the management of children with congenital heart disease. The purpose of the present protocol is to evaluate the risk for infectious complications in terms of catheter colonization, catheter line–associated bloodstream infections, and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), and the mechanical complications from different central venous access sites in infants and newborns undergoing cardiac surgery. One hundred sixty patients under 1 year of age and scheduled for cardiac surgery will be included in this randomized controlled trial (RCT); patients will be randomly allocated to the jugular or femoral vein arms. CVC insertion will be performed by one of three selected expert operators. The choice of the insertion site for central venous catheterization can influence the incidence and type of infectious complications in adults but this is not unanimously evidenced in the pediatric setting. The experimental hypothesis of this RCT is that the jugular insertion site is less likely to induce catheter colonization and CRBSI than the femoral site. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03282292 . Registered on 12 September 2017.

Wide variations exist in the use of pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) and echocardiography in the field of cardiac surgery. A national survey promoted by the Italian Association of Cardio-Thoracic Anesthesiologists and Intensive Care was conducted. The study occurred in Italian cardiac surgery centers (n = 71). Anesthesiologists-intensivists were enrolled. Anonymous questionnaires were used to investigate the use of PACs and echocardiography in the operating room (OR) and intensive care unit (ICU). A total of 257 respondents (32.2% response rate) from 59 centers (83.1% response rate) participated. Use of PACs seems less common in ORs (median insertion in 20% [5-70] of patients), with slightly higher use in ICUs; in about half of cases, it was the continuous cardiac output monitoring system of choice. Almost two-thirds of respondents recently inserted at least one PAC within a few hours of ICU admission, despite its need being largely preoperatively predictable. Protocols regulating PAC insertion were reported by 25.3% and 28% of respondents (OR and ICU, respectively). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed intraoperatively in >75% of patients by 86.4% of respondents; only 23.7% stated that intraoperative TEE relied on anesthesiologists. Tissue Doppler and/or 3D imaging were widely available (87.4% and 82%, respectively), but only 37.8% and 24.3% of respondents self-declared skills in these modalities, respectively; 77.1% of respondents had no echocardiography certification, nor were pursuing certification (various reasons); 40.9% had not attended recent echocardiography courses. Lower PAC use was associated with university hospitals (OR: p = 0.014, ICU: p = 0.032) and with lower interventions/year (OR: p = 0.023). Higher independence in performing TEE was reported in university hospitals (OR: p < 0.001; ICU: p = 0.006), centers with higher interventions/year (OR: p = 0.019), and by respondents with less experience in cardiology (ICU: p = 0.046). Variability in the use of PACs and echocardiography was found. Protocols regulating the use of PACs seem infrequent. University centers use PACs less and have greater skills in TEE. Training and certifications in echocardiography should be encouraged.