Rationale: Poor preoperative physical fitness and respiratory muscle weakness are associated with postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) that result in prolonged hospital length of stay and increased mortality. Objectives: To examine the effect of preoperative exercise training on the risk of PPCs across different surgical settings. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the Cochrane Central Register, without language restrictions, for studies from inception to July 2020. We included randomized controlled trials that compared patients receiving exercise training with those receiving usual care or sham training before cardiac, lung, esophageal, or abdominal surgery. PPCs were the main outcome; secondary outcomes were preoperative functional changes and postoperative mortality, cardiovascular complications, and hospital length of stay. The study was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). Results: From 29 studies, 2,070 patients were pooled for meta-analysis. Compared with the control condition, preoperative exercise training was associated with a lower incidence of PPCs (23 studies, 1,864 patients; relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.66; grading of evidence, moderate); Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed effectiveness, and there was no evidence of difference of effect across surgeries, type of training (respiratory muscles, endurance or combined), or preoperative duration of training. At the end of the preoperative period, exercise training resulted in increased peak oxygen uptake (weighted mean difference [WMD], +2 ml/kg/min; 99% CI, 0.3 to 3.7) and higher maximal inspiratory pressure (WMD, +12.2 cm H2O; 99% CI, 6.3 to 18.2). Hospital length of stay was shortened (WMD, −2.3 d; 99% CI, −3.82 to −0.75) in the intervention group, whereas no difference was found in postoperative mortality. Conclusions: Preoperative exercise training improves physical fitness and reduces the risk of developing PPCs while minimizing hospital resources use, regardless of the type of intervention and surgery performed. Systematic review registered with https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (CRD 42018096956).

Introduction: Massive acute pulmonary embolism (MAPE) with obstructive cardiogenic shock is associated with a mortality rate of more than 50%. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been increasingly used in refractory cardiogenic shock with very good results. In MAPE, although it is currently recommended as part of initial resuscitation, it is not yet considered a stand-alone therapy. Material and Methods: All patients with MAPE requiring the establishment of VA-ECMO and admitted to our tertiary intensive care unit were analysed over a period of 10 years. The characteristics of these patients, before, during and after ECMO were extracted and analysed. Results: A total of 36 patients were included in the present retrospective study. Overall survival was 64%. In the majority of cases, the haemodynamic and respiratory status of the patient improved significantly within the first 24 h on ECMO. The 30-day survival significantly increased when ECMO was used as stand-alone therapy (odds ratio (OR) 15.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.65–91.57, p = 0.002). Nevertheless, when ECMO was implanted following the failure of thrombolysis, the bleeding complications were major (17 (100%) vs. 1 (5.3%) patients, p < 0.001) and the 30-day mortality increased significantly (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.022–0.520, p = 0.006). Conclusions: The present retrospective study is certainly one of the most important in terms of the number of patients with MAPE and shock treated with VA-ECMO. This short-term mechanical circulatory support, used as a stand-alone therapy in MAPE, allows for the optimal stabilisation of patients.

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a frequent cause of death and a major public health issue. To date, conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is the only efficient method of resuscitation available that positively impacts prognosis. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a complex and costly technique that requires technical expertise. It is not considered standard of care in all hospitals and should be applied only in high-volume facilities. ECMO combined with CPR is known as ECPR (extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and permits hemodynamic and respiratory stabilization of patients with CA refractory to conventional CPR. This technique allows the parallel treatment of the underlying etiology of CA while maintaining organ perfusion. However, current evidence does not support the routine use of ECPR in all patients with refractory CA. Therefore, an appropriate selection of patients who may benefit from this procedure is key. Reducing the duration of low blood flow by means of performing high-quality CPR and promoting access to ECPR, may improve the survival rate of the patients presenting with refractory CA. Indeed, patients who benefit from ECPR seem to carry better neurological outcomes. The aim of this present narrative review is to present the most recent literature available on ECPR and to clarify its potential therapeutic role, as well as to provide an in-depth explanation of equipment and its set up, the patient selection process, and the patient management post-ECPR.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease with an annual incidence rate ranging from 39–115 per 100,000 inhabitants. It is one of the leading causes of cardiovascular mortality in the USA and Europe. While the clinical presentation and severity may vary, it is a life-threatening condition in its most severe form, defined as high-risk or massive PE. Therapeutic options in high-risk PE are limited. Current guidelines recommend the use of systemic thrombolytic therapy as first-line therapy (Level Ib). However, this treatment has important drawbacks including bleeding complications, limited efficacy in patients with recurrent PE or cardiac arrest, and formal contraindications. In this context, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in the management of high-risk PE has increased worldwide in the last decade. Strategies, including VA-ECMO as a stand-alone therapy or as a bridge to alternative reperfusion therapies, are associated with acceptable outcomes, especially if implemented before cardiac arrest. Nonetheless, the level of evidence supporting ECMO and alternative reperfusion therapies is low. The optimal management of high-risk PE patients will remain controversial until the realization of a prospective randomized trial comparing those cited strategies to systemic thrombolysis.

Introduction: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of mortality. Despite decades of intensive research and several technological advancements, survival rates remain low. The integration of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been recognized as a promising approach in refractory OHCA. However, evidence from recent randomized controlled trials yielded contradictory results, and the criteria for selecting eligible patients are still a subject of debate. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of refractory OHCA patients treated with ECPR. All adult patients who received ECPR, according to the hospital algorithm, from 2013 to 2021 were included. Two different algorithms were used during this period. A “permissive” algorithm was used from 2013 to mid-2016. Subsequently, a revised algorithm, more “restrictive”, based on international guidelines, was implemented from mid-2016 to 2021. Key differences between the two algorithms included reducing the no-flow time from less than three minutes to zero minutes (implying that the cardiac arrests must occur in the presence of a witness with immediate CPR initiation), reducing low-flow duration from 100 to 60 min, and lowering the age limit from 65 to 55 years. The aim of this study is to compare these two algorithms (permissive (1) and restrictive (2)) to determine if the use of a restrictive algorithm was associated with higher survival rates. Results: A total of 48 patients were included in this study, with 23 treated under Algorithm 1 and 25 under Algorithm 2. A significant difference in survival rate was observed in favor of the restrictive algorithm (9% vs. 68%, p < 0.05). Moreover, significant differences emerged between algorithms regarding the no-flow time (0 (0–5) vs. 0 (0–0) minutes, p < 0.05). Survivors had a significantly shorter no-flow and low-flow time (0 (0–0) vs. 0 (0–3) minutes, p < 0.01 and 40 (31–53) vs. 60 (45–80) minutes, p < 0.05), respectively. Conclusion: The present study emphasizes that a stricter selection of OHCA patients improves survival rates in ECPR.