BACKGROUND: Although venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is beneficial for the treatment of profound cardiogenic shock, peripheral VA-ECMO cannulation can increase left ventricular afterload, thus compromising myocardial recovery. We investigated whether early routine left ventricular unloading can reduce 30-day mortality compared with the conventional approach in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial involved 116 patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO from March 2021 to September 2022 at Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, South Korea. The patients were randomly assigned to undergo either early routine left ventricular unloading with transseptal left atrial cannulation within 12 hours after randomization (n=58) or the conventional approach, which permitted rescue transseptal left atrial cannulation in case of an increased left ventricular afterload (n=58). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days. RESULTS: All 116 randomized patients (mean age, 67.6±13.5 years; 34 [29.3%] women) completed the trial. At 30 days, all-cause death had occurred in 27 (46.6%) patients in the early group and 26 (44.8%) patients in the conventional group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.59–1.74]; P =0.942). Crossover to rescue transseptal left atrial cannulation occurred in 29 patients (50%) in the conventional group according to a clear indication. Time to rescue transseptal cannulation in the conventional group was a median of 21.8 (interquartile range, 12.4–52.2) hours after randomization. There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes between the 2 groups except for a shorter time to disappearance of pulmonary congestion in the early group (median, 3 [interquartile range, 2–6] versus 5 [interquartile range, 3–7] days; P =0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO, early routine left ventricular unloading with transseptal left atrial cannulation did not reduce 30-day mortality compared with the conventional strategy, which permitted rescue transseptal left atrial cannulation. These findings should be cautiously interpreted until the results of multicenter trials using other unloading modalities become available. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04775472.

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is widely used to treat medically refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, and its usage has increased exponentially over time. Although VA-ECMO has many advantages over other mechanical circulatory supports, it has the unavoidable disadvantage of increasing retrograde arterial flow in the afterload, which causes left ventricular (LV) overload and can lead to undesirable consequences during VA-ECMO treatment. Weak or no antegrade flow without sufficient opening of the aortic valve increases the LV end-diastolic pressure, and that can cause refractory pulmonary edema, blood stagnation, thrombosis, and refractory ventricular arrhythmia. This hemodynamic change is also related to an increase in myocardial energy consumption and poor recovery, making LV unloading an essential management issue during VA-ECMO treatment. The principal factors in effective LV unloading are its timing, indications, and modalities. In this article, we review why LV unloading is required, when it is indicated, and how it can be achieved.

Jae Beom Jeon, M.D., Cho Hee Lee, M.D., Yongwhan Lim, M.D., Ph.D., Min-Chul Kim, M.D., Ph.D., Hwa Jin Cho, M.D., Ph.D., Do Wan Kim, M.D., Kyo Seon Lee, M.D., In Seok Jeong, M.D., Ph.D.. J Chest Surg 2023;56:244-51. https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.22.130

Background: Chronic vasodilator therapy with long‐acting nitrate is frequently used to treat vasospastic angina. However, the clinical benefits of this approach are controversial. We investigated the prognostic impact of vasodilator therapy in patients with vasospastic angina from the multicenter, prospective VA‐KOREA (Vasospastic Angina in KOREA) registry. Methods and Results: We analyzed data from 1895 patients with positive intracoronary ergonovine provocation test results. The patients were divided into 4 groups: no vasodilator (n=359), nonnitrate vasodilator (n=1187), conventional nitrate (n=209), and a combination of conventional nitrate and other vasodilators (n=140). The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, acute coronary syndrome, and new‐onset arrhythmia at 2 years. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary end point, all‐cause death, and rehospitalization due to recurrent angina. The groups did not differ in terms of the risk of the primary end point. However, the acute coronary syndrome risk was significantly higher in the conventional nitrate (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% CI, 1.01–6.14; P =0.047) and combination groups (HR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.15–9.75, P =0.027) compared with the no‐vasodilator group, as assessed using the inverse probability of treatment weights. Subgroup analyses revealed prominent adverse effects of nitrate in patients with an intermediate positive ergonovine provocation test result and in those with low Japanese Coronary Spasm Association scores. Conclusions: Long‐acting nitrate‐based chronic vasodilator therapy was associated with an increased 2‐year risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients with vasospastic angina, especially in low‐risk patients.

Eunchong Kim, M.D., Nodirbek Yuldashev Sodirzhon-Ugli, M.D., Do Wan Kim, M.D., Kyo Seon Lee, M.D., Yonghwan Lim, M.D., Min-Chul Kim, M.D., Ph.D., Yong Soo Cho, M.D., Yong Hun Jung, M.D., Ph.D., Kyung Woon Jeung, M.D., Ph.D., Hwa Jin Cho, M.D., Ph.D., In Seok Jeong, M.D., Ph.D.. J Chest Surg 2022;55:143-50. https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.21.127

In this study, we identified several factors related to left ventricular remodeling (LVR) and examined the impact of LVR on the prognosis of patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction and multivessel disease treated with complete (CR) or incomplete (IR) revascularization. LVR was defined as an LV end-diastolic diameter >55 mm. A total of 262 patients without LVR at presentation were followed up with echocardiography between 1 month and 1 year. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death (AD), MI, and heart failure (HF), referred to as a major adverse cardiovascular endpoint (MACE). Then, each variable was analyzed as a secondary outcome. Follow-up echocardiography identified 26 patients (9.9%) with LVR. LVR was associated with an initial LV ejection fraction 70 mg/dL. Survival analysis showed an association between LVR and adverse outcomes only in the IR group, in which the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was increased for the MACE (HR = 3.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.19–8.71, p = 0.002) and HF (HR = 21.37, 95% CI = 4.47–102.09, p< 0.001), but not for the CR group. In STEMI with MVD, LVR within the first year after percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with worse outcomes in the IR but not the CR group.