Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction frequently occurs after cardiac surgery and is linked to adverse postoperative outcomes, including mortality, reintubation, stroke, and prolonged ICU stays. While various criteria using echocardiography and hemodynamic parameters have been proposed, a consensus remains elusive. Distinctive RV anatomical features include its thin wall, which presents a triangular shape in a lateral view and a crescent shape in a cross-sectional view. Principal causes of RV dysfunction after cardiac surgery encompass ischemic reperfusion injury, prolonged ischemic time, choice of cardioplegia and its administration, cardiopulmonary bypass weaning characteristics, and preoperative risk factors. Post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation RV dysfunction is common but often transient, with a favorable prognosis upon resolution. There is an ongoing debate regarding the benefits of concomitant surgical repair of the RV in the presence of regurgitation. According to the literature, the gold standard techniques for assessing RV function are cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and hemodynamic assessment using thermodilution. Echocardiography is widely favored for perioperative RV function evaluation due to its accessibility, reproducibility, non-invasiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Although other techniques exist for RV function assessment, they are less common in clinical practice. Clinical management strategies focus on early detection and include intravenous drugs (inotropes and vasodilators), inhalation drugs (pulmonary vasodilators), ventilator strategies, volume management, and mechanical support. Bridging research gaps in this field is crucial to improving clinical outcomes associated with RV dysfunction in the near future.

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.

Patient management in heart transplant is quite complex and includes multiple steps from preoperative recipient evaluation to postoperative ICU treatment. Monitoring, anesthesia induction, and cardiopulmonary bypass weaning strategies are discussed. The success of the operation also depends on right heart support especially in case of pulmonary hypertension. Many details like fluid management, well-timed respiratory weaning, and primary graft dysfunction management can make the difference in terms of outcome. Pediatric heart transplants represent a small group of total cardiac transplant, but the differences in anatomy and physiology make the surgical and anesthesiological management more complex in unique scenario that requires a specific knowledge at different stages of growth, from newborn through childhood up to adulthood.

Background and Objectives: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a potentially severe complication following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in these patients has risen significantly over the past two decades, especially when conventional treatments fail. Our aim is to provide an overview of the role of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI, with the most recent literature highlights. Materials and Methods: We have reviewed the current VA-ECMO practices with a particular focus on CS complicating AMI. The largest studies reporting the most significant results, i.e., overall clinical outcomes and management of the weaning process, were identified in the PubMed database from 2019 to 2024. Results: The literature about the use of VA-ECMO in CS complicating AMI primarily has consisted of observational studies until 2019, generating the need for randomized controlled trials. The EURO-SHOCK trial showed a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate in patients receiving VA-ECMO compared to those receiving standard therapy. The ECMO-CS trial compared immediate VA-ECMO implementation with early conservative therapy, with a similar mortality rate between the two groups. The ECLS-SHOCK trial, the largest randomized controlled trial in this field, found no significant difference in mortality at 30 days between the ECMO group and the control group. Recent studies suggest the potential benefits of combining left ventricular unloading devices with VA-ECMO, but they also highlight the increased complication rate, such as bleeding and vascular issues. The routine use of VA-ECMO in AMI complicated by CS cannot be universally supported due to limited evidence and associated risks. Ongoing trials like the Danger Shock, Anchor, and Recover IV trials aim to provide further insights into the management of AMI complicated by CS. Conclusions: Standardizing the timing and indications for initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial and should guide future trials. Multidisciplinary approaches tailored to individual patient needs are essential to minimize complications from unnecessary MCS device initiation.