Objective: This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes and 30-day mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (<40%) who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with (ONCAB) and without (OPCAB) the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: data from four university hospitals in Germany, spanning from January 2017 to December 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 551 patients were included in the study, and various demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were compared. Results: demographic parameters did not exhibit any differences. However, the OPCAB group displayed notably higher rates of preoperative renal insufficiency, urgent surgeries, and elevated EuroScore II and STS score. During surgery, the ONCAB group showed a significantly higher rate of complete revascularization, whereas the OPCAB group required fewer intraoperative transfusions. No disparities were observed in 30-day/in-hospital mortality for the entire cohort and the matched population between the two groups. Subsequent to surgery, the OPCAB group demonstrated significantly shorter mechanical ventilation times, reduced stays in the intensive care unit, and lower occurrences of ECLS therapy, acute kidney injury, delirium, and sepsis. Conclusions: the study’s findings indicate that OPCAB surgery presents a safe and viable alternative, yielding improved postoperative outcomes in this specific patient population compared to ONCAB surgery. Despite comparable 30-day/in-hospital mortality rates, OPCAB patients enjoyed advantages such as decreased mechanical ventilation durations, shorter ICU stays, and reduced incidences of ECLS therapy, acute kidney injury, delirium, and sepsis. These results underscore the potential benefits of employing OPCAB as a treatment approach for patients with coronary heart disease and reduced ejection fraction.

Background: Aortic valve and root replacement (AVRR) is a standardised procedure to treat patients with aortic valve and root disease. In centres with a well-established aortic valve and root repair program (valve repairs and Ross operations), only patients with very complex conditions receive AVRR; this procedure uses a mechanical or biological composite valve graft (modified Bentall–de Bono procedure). The aim of the study was to evaluate the short- and long-term results after AVRR in a high-risk population with complex pathologies. Methods: Between 2005 and 2018, a total of 273 consecutive patients (mean age 64 ± 12.8 years; 23% female) received AVRR. The indication for surgery was an acute type A aortic dissection in 18%, infective endocarditis in 36% and other pathologies in 46% patients; 39% were redo procedures. The median EuroSCORE II was 11.65% (range 1.48–95.63%). Concomitant surgery was required in 157 patients (58%). Results: The follow-up extended to 5.2 years (range 0.1–15 years) and it was complete in 96% of the patients. The 30-day mortality was 17%. The overall estimated survival at 5 and 10 years was 65% ± 3% and 49% ± 4%, respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed the following risk factors for survival: perioperative neurological dysfunction (OR 5.45), peripheral artery disease (OR 4.4) and re-exploration for bleeding (OR 3.37). Conclusions: AVRR can be performed with acceptable short- and long-term results in a sick patient population. The Bentall–De Bono procedure may be determined to be suitable for only elderly or high-risk patients. Any other patients should receive an AV repair or the Ross procedure in well-established centres.

Background: End-stage heart failure is associated with high mortality. Recent developments such as the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) have improved patient outcomes. The HeartMate 3 LVAD is a novel centrifugal pump that was developed to provide hemodynamic support in heart failure patients, either as a bridge-to-transplant (BTT), myocardial recovery, or destination therapy (DT). Our objective was to evaluate the survival rates and LVAD-related complications of the HeartMate 3 LVAD before and after hospital discharge in our center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients implanted with the HeartMate 3 LVAD in our institute between September 2015 and June 2024. Patients who received a Heart Ware Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD) and HeartMate 2 LVAD devices were excluded. The primary endpoint was survival before and after hospital discharge. The secondary endpoints included an incidence of serious LVAD adverse events (bleeding, major infection, hemolysis, device thrombosis and malfunction, and neurological dysfunction) and the causes of re-admission along the follow-up period. Results: A total of 48 consecutive HeartMate 3 LVAD patients were enrolled in this study. The mean age was 56.1 ± 10.6 years. A total of 72.9% of patients received LVAD therapy as a BTT, 14.6% as DT, 10.4% as a bridge-to-decision, and 2.1% as a bridge-to-recovery. A total of 85.4% of patients were discharged after implantation. The main cause for in-hospital mortality was right ventricular failure (8.3%), followed by stroke, abdominal bleeding, and multi-organ failure (2.1% each). One patient (2.1%) had successful heart transplantation, 26 patients (63.4%) are still on LVAD support, and 11 (26.8%) patients have died during follow-up. The main cause of mortality after hospital discharge was sepsis, which occurred in 9.8% of patients, followed by right ventricular failure, non-LVAD-related causes, unknown causes with two (4.9%) cases each, and one case of fatal stroke (2.4%). During the follow-up, there was no need for LVAD replacement. Conclusions: HeartMate 3 LVAD is associated with excellent in-hospital survival rates in patients with end-stage heart failure. Right ventricular failure was the main cause of death before hospital discharge, whereas sepsis was the main cause of death after hospital discharge.

Background: In advanced heart failure patients implanted with a fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3 (HM3) Abbott left ventricular assist device (LVAD), it is unknown how the role of the LVAD outpatient clinic may affect the long-term survival after hospital discharge. Our objective is to share our standardized protocol for outpatient care, to describe the role of the LVAD outpatient clinic in postoperative long-term care after LVAD implantation, and to report survival. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients implanted with HM3 LVAD in our institute between September 2015 and January 2025. Patients who received HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD) and HeartMate 2 LVAD devices were excluded from our study, to ensure a homogenous cohort focusing on the latest and the only currently used LVAD device generation. We included a total of 48 patients. After LVAD patients are discharged from our center, they are followed in our outpatient clinic in 3-month intervals. During visits, bloodwork, EKG, wound inspection, and echocardiography are performed in addition to LVAD analysis. The role of the outpatient clinic is to detect early signs of deterioration or problems and act accordingly to prevent serious complications. Results: Thirty-three patients (68.7%) are still alive in 2025; two patients (4.2%) had a successful heart transplantation; and thirty-one patients (64.5%) are still on LVAD support. There were 210 total patient years of support. The mean time on device is 4.4 years. During the follow-up period we noticed 15 deaths (31.3%). Notably, there was no technical device-related death. Kaplan–Meier analysis estimated an overall survival rate of 97.9%, 92.8%, 83.7%, and 51.1% at 1, 2, 4, and 8 years, respectively. Conclusion: Strict control of patients after discharge in an outpatient clinic is essential for the long-term survival of these patients. A well-structured outpatient program is of utter importance to avoid LVAD-related complications and should be a cornerstone for the treatment, especially in non-transplant centers.

Background/Objectives: Impella support is increasingly utilized as a crucial bridge to durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. However, the transvalvular path of the Impella catheter raises concerns regarding mechanical trauma, potentially precipitating or accelerating aortic regurgitation (AR). We aimed to characterize the complete longitudinal trajectory of AR following Impella bridge-to-LVAD and to determine its association with clinical and hemodynamic sequelae. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study including all patients bridged from Impella to durable LVAD between 2013 and 2024 (n = 19). At Impella initiation, all patients met the retrospective SCAI shock stage D or worse criteria. At LVAD implantation, all patients were classified as INTERMACS 1–2 (INTERMACS 2, n = 13). The Impella models were 5.0 in 11 (axillary access), 2.5 in 5 (femoral access), and CP in 3 (femoral access); no periprocedural Impella complications were recorded. The implanted LVAD systems were HeartMate II (n = 7), HVAD (n = 3), and HeartMate III (n = 9). Patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve intervention were excluded. Transthoracic/TEE echocardiography was performed at prespecified time points (pre-Impella, pre-LVAD, post-LVAD discharge, 12 months, and 24 months) with standardized aortic regurgitation (AR) grading. Right ventricular (RV) function was assessed qualitatively when quantitative indices (TAPSE) were unavailable. Primary endpoints were new or progressive AR and AR severity at LVAD implantation. Secondary endpoints included survival, renal dysfunction, biomarkers, and rehospitalization. Univariate analyses were used to compare outcomes according to AR severity. Results: Nineteen patients (68% male, median age 57 years, IQR 47–60) underwent Impella support for 13.3 ± 9.9 days before HeartMate 3 (84%) or HVAD (16%) implantation. All patients had competent aortic valves (grade 0 AR) at the time of LVAD implantation. AR ≥ mild developed in 9/18 (50%) at discharge, 12/15 (80%) at 12 months, and 13/15 (87%) at 24 months, and 8/15 (53%) progressed to ≥ moderate AR by 24 months. Patients with moderate-to-severe AR had higher NT-proBNP levels at 12 months (median 6318 vs. 2336 pg/mL, p = 0.137). Thirty-day and 24-month survival rates were 95% and 79%, respectively. Conclusions: Aortic regurgitation frequently develops or progresses from the pre-LVAD period to follow-up in patients bridged from Impella to durable LVAD. Although limited by a small sample size and incomplete quantitative RV metrics, these observations support structured echocardiographic surveillance after Impella use and management strategies—routine valve inspection at LVAD implantation and post-LVAD speed/blood pressure targets that encourage aortic valve opening—to mitigate the risk and clinical impact of aortic regurgitation.

Background: The yearly number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations is approximately twice the number of heart transplantations (HTX) in Germany. As the number of patients with an LVAD installed grows, so does the likelihood of their presentation to the emergency room (ER). Due to uneasiness in identifying their primary complaint, ER personnel are often likely to overlook important clues in the treatment of patients with an LVAD. Methods: To assess the urgency of patients’ conditions and their relationship with LVADs, we retrospectively examined the ER admissions of patients with HeartMate 3^TM (HM 3) LVADs installed between 2014 and 2024 at our university medical center. We counted referrals to the peripheral ward (minor) and to the intensive care unit (ICU, major). Relation to LVAD relation was also recorded. The survival was analyzed with respect to the severity of the cause of admission (minor/major) and the relationship to the LVAD therapy. Results: We observed 100 presentations to the emergency department. Of these, 77 were minor and 23 were major. The majority (92) was not related to the LVAD. Of the eight admissions related to the LVAD, two were major adverse events, accounting only for 2% of the total cases. Conclusions: An ER presentation of a patient with an HM 3 is very likely to have a medical cause not related to the LVAD. LVAD-related causes were mostly minor and could be treated on the ward.