Background: Head-to-head comparisons of devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are mostly limited to 2-arm studies so far. The aim of this study was to compare simultaneously outcomes of the most used, second- and third-generation transcatheter aortic valves in a real-world population. Methods: A total of 2728 patients undergoing TAVI with different second- and third-generation devices, and enrolled in the multicenter, prospective OBSERVANT II study (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI With New Generation Devices for Severe Aortic Stenosis Treatment) from December 2016 to September 2018 were compared according to the transcatheter aortic valve received. Outcomes were adjudicated through a linkage with administrative databases, and adjusted using inverse propensity of treatment weighting. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, stroke and rehospitalization for heart failure at 1-year. Rates were reported consecutively for Evolut R, Evolut PRO, SAPIEN 3, ACURATE neo, and Portico groups. Results: The primary end point did not differ among groups (23.9% versus 24.7% versus 21.5% versus 23.7% versus 27.4%, respectively, P =0.56). Permanent pacemaker implantation was significantly lower for patients receiving SAPIEN 3 (19.9% versus 19.3% versus 12.5% versus 14.7% versus 22.1%, respectively, P <0.01) at 1 year. The SAPIEN 3 had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation (moderate-to-severe grade 10.1% versus 5.0% versus 2.1% versus 13.1% versus 10.8%, respectively, P <0.01) but higher transprosthetic gradients (median mean gradients 7.0 versus 6.0 versus 10.0 versus 7.0 versus 8.0 mm Hg, respectively, P <0.01) after TAVI. Conclusions: Data from real-world practice showed low and comparable rates of complications after TAVI considering all the available devices. Patients receiving SAPIEN 3 valve had lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation, but higher transprosthetic gradients.

Right ventricular failure (RFV) is a potential complication following cardio-thoracic surgery, with an incidence ranging from 0.1% to 30%. The increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is one of the main triggers of perioperative RVF. Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVs) can reduce PVR and improve right ventricular function with minimal systemic effects. This narrative review aims to assess the efficacy of inhaled nitric oxide and inhaled prostacyclins for the treatment of perioperative RVF. The literature, although statistically limited, supports the clinical similarity between them. However, it failed to demonstrate a clear benefit from the pre-emptive use of inhaled nitric oxide in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation or early administration during heart-lung transplants. Additional concerns are related to cost safety and IPV use in pathologies associated with pulmonary venous congestion. The largest ongoing randomized controlled trial on adults (INSPIRE-FLO) is addressing whether inhaled Epoprostenol and inhaled nitric oxide are similar in preventing RVF after heart transplants and left ventricular assist device placement, and whether they are similar in preventing primary graft dysfunction after lung transplants. The preliminary analysis supports their equivalence. Several key points may be achieved by the present narrative review. When RVF occurs in the setting of elevated PVR, IPV should be the preferred initial treatment and they should be preventively used in patients at high risk of postoperative RVF. If severe refractory postoperative RVF occurs, IPVs should be combined with complementary pharmacology (inotropes and inodilators). If unsuccessful, right ventricular mechanical support should be established.

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.

Management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) remains to be a true challenge in critically ill patients. The pharmacological proprieties of dexmedetomidine (DEX) make it an ideal candidate drug for light and cooperative sedation, but many practical questions remain unanswered. This structured consensus from 17 intensivists well experienced on PAD management and DEX use provides indications for the appropriate use of DEX in clinical practice. A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used. In four predefined patient populations, the clinical scenarios do not properly cope by the current recommended pharmacological strategies (except DEX), and the possible advantages of DEX use were identified and voted for agreement, after reviewing literature data. Three scenarios in medical patients, five scenarios in patients with acute respiratory failure undergoing non-invasive ventilation, three scenarios in patients with cardiac surgery in the early postoperative period and three scenarios in patients with overt delirium were identified as challenging with the current PAD strategies. In these scenarios, the use of DEX was voted as potentially useful by most of the panellists owing to its specific pharmacological characteristics, such as conservation of cognitive function, lack of effects on the respiratory drive, low induction of delirium and analgesia effects. DEX might be considered as a first-line sedative in different scenarios even though conclusive data on its benefits are still lacking.