Vasoplegic syndrome (VS) is a common complication following cardiovascular surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and its incidence varies from 5 to 44%. It is defined as a distributive form of shock due to a significant drop in vascular resistance after CPB. Risk factors of VS include heart failure with low ejection fraction, renal failure, pre-operative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, prolonged aortic cross-clamp and left ventricular assist device surgery. The pathophysiology of VS after CPB is multi-factorial. Surgical trauma, exposure to the elements of the CPB circuit and ischemia-reperfusion promote a systemic inflammatory response with the release of cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α) with vasodilating properties, both direct and indirect through the expression of inducible nitric oxide (NO) synthase. The resulting increase in NO production fosters a decrease in vascular resistance and a reduced responsiveness to vasopressor agents. Further mechanisms of vasodilation include the lowering of plasma vasopressin, the desensitization of adrenergic receptors, and the activation of ATP-dependent potassium (K_ATP) channels. Patients developing VS experience more complications and have increased mortality. Management includes primarily fluid resuscitation and conventional vasopressors (catecholamines and vasopressin), while alternative vasopressors (angiotensin 2, methylene blue, hydroxocobalamin) and anti-inflammatory strategies (corticosteroids) may be used as a rescue therapy in deteriorating patients, albeit with insufficient evidence to provide any strong recommendation. In this review, we present an update of the pathophysiological mechanisms of vasoplegic syndrome complicating CPB and discuss available therapeutic options.

Current guidelines recommend prophylactic replacement of the ascending aorta at an aneurysmal diameter of >55 mm to prevent acute Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) in non-Marfan patients. Several publications have challenged this threshold, suggesting that surgery should be performed in smaller aneurysms to prevent this devastating disease. We reviewed our experience with measuring aortic size at the time of TAAD to validate the existing recommendation for prophylactic ascending aorta replacement. All patients who had been admitted for TAAD to our emergency department from 2014 to 2019 and underwent ascending aorta replacement were included. Marfan patients were excluded. The maximum diameter of the dissected aorta was measured preoperatively using CT scan. We estimated the aortic diameter at the time of dissection to be 7 mm smaller than the measured maximum diameter of the dissected aorta (modelled pre-dissection diameter). Overall, 102 patients were included. Of these, 67 were male (65.6%) and 35 were female (34.4%), and the cohort’s mean age was 65 ± 12.1 years. In addition, 66% were treated for arterial hypertension. The mean maximum modelled pre-dissection diameter was 39.6 ± 4.8 mm: 39.1 ± 5.1 mm in men and 40.7 ± 2.8 mm in women (P = 0.1). The cumulative 30-day mortality rate was 19.6% (20/102). TAAD occurred at a modelled aortic diameter below 45 mm in 87.7% of our patients. Therefore, the current aortic diameter threshold of 55 mm excludes ∼99% of patients with TAAD from prophylactic replacement of the ascending aorta. The maximum diameter of the ascending aorta warrants reappraisal and this parameter should be a distinct part of a personalized decision-making process that also takes into account age, gender and body surface area to establish the surgical indication for preventive aorta replacement aimed to improve the survival benefit of this procedure.

About 15 years ago, Patient Blood Management (PBM) emerged as a new paradigm in perioperative medicine and rapidly found support of all major medical societies and government bodies. Blood products are precious, scarce and expensive and their use is frequently associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes. Recommendations and guidelines on the topic are published in an increasing rate. The concept aims at using an evidence-based approach to rationalize transfusion practices by optimizing the patient’s red blood cell mass in the pre-, intra- and postoperative periods. However, elegant as a concept, the implementation of a PBM program on an institutional level or even in a single surgical discipline like cardiac surgery, can be easier said than done. Many barriers, such as dogmatic ideas, logistics and lack of support from the medical and administrative departments need to be overcome and each center must find solutions to their specific problems. In this paper we present a narrative overview of the challenges and updated recommendations for the implementation of a PBM program in cardiac surgery.

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been implemented in various surgical specialties to improve patient outcomes and reduce opioid consumption. In cardiac surgery, the traditionally high-dose opioid use is associated with prolonged ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, and opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs). This study evaluates the impact of an ERAS^® Society-certified program on opioid consumption in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery at Lausanne University Hospital. Methods: A retrospective, monocentric observational study was conducted comparing two patient cohorts: one treated with ERAS protocols (2023–2024) and a retrospective control group from 2019. Data were collected from the hospital’s electronic medical records and the ERAS program database. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption, measured intraoperatively and postoperatively (postoperative day (POD) 0–3). Secondary outcomes included pain control, length of stay, complications, and recovery parameters. Statistical analyses included multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with reduced opioid consumption. Results: Patients in the ERAS group demonstrated significantly lower total opioid consumption, whether intraoperatively (median sufentanil: 40 mcg vs. 51 mcg, p < 0.0001) or postoperatively (POD 0–3: p < 0.001). The ERAS group had faster extubation times, earlier mobilization and pain control with non-opioid analgesics, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stays (9 vs. 12 days, p < 0.001). Logistic regression identified fast-track extubation and absence of complications as strong predictors of reduced opioid use. Conclusions: The implementation of an ERAS protocol in cardiac surgery significantly reduces opioid consumption while enhancing recovery.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a major issue in cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). HIT represents a severe adverse drug reaction after heparin administration. It consists of immune-mediated thrombocytopenia paradoxically leading to thrombotic events. Detection of antibodies against platelets factor 4/heparin (anti-PF4/H) and aggregation of platelets in the presence of heparin in functional in vitro tests confirm the diagnosis. Patients suffering from HIT and requiring cardiac surgery are at high risk of lethal complications and present specific challenges. Four distinct phases are described in the usual HIT timeline, and the anticoagulation strategy chosen for CPB depends on the phase in which the patient is categorized. In this sense, we developed an institutional protocol covering each phase. It consisted of the use of a non-heparin anticoagulant such as bivalirudin, or the association of unfractionated heparin (UFH) with a potent antiplatelet drug such as tirofiban or cangrelor. Temporary reduction of anti-PF4 with intravenous immunoglobulins (IvIg) has recently been described as a complementary strategy. In this article, we briefly described the pathophysiology of HIT and focused on the various strategies that can be applied to safely manage CPB in these patients.

Background: The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic is reducing health care accessibility to non–life-threatening diseases, thus hiding their real incidence. Moreover, the incidence of potentially fatal conditions such as acute type A aortic dissection seems to have decreased since the pandemic began, whereas the number of cases of chronic ascending aortic dissections dramatically increased. We present two patients whose management has been affected by the exceptional sanitary situation we are dealing with.Case report: A 70-year-old man with chest pain and an aortic regurgitation murmur had his cardiac workup delayed (4 months) because of sanitary restrictions. He was then diagnosed with chronic type A aortic dissection and underwent urgent replacement of ascending aorta and aortic root. The delay in surgical treatment made the intervention technically challenging because the ascending aorta grew up to 80 mm inducing strong adhesions and chronic inflammation. The second case report concerns a 68-year-old woman with right lower-limb pain who was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis. However, a CT scan to exclude a pulmonary embolism could not be realized until 5 months later because of sanitary restrictions. When she eventually got the CT scan, it fortuitously showed a chronic dissection of the ascending aorta. She underwent urgent surgery, and the intervention was challenging because of adhesions and severe inflammation.Conclusion: Delayed treatment due to sanitary restrictions related to COVID-19 pandemic is having a significant impact on the management of potentially life-threatening conditions including type A aortic dissection. We should remain careful to avoid COVID-19 also hitting patients who are not infected with the virus.