The use of left-sided Impella microaxial flow pumps has expanded rapidly for the management of cardiogenic shock, left ventricular unloading and as a bridge to heart transplantation. However, standard life support and resuscitation algorithms are not directly applicable to patients receiving this therapy due to fundamental alterations in circulatory physiology. To address this gap, eleven UK Impella centres and eight national professional societies collaborated to develop a unified national consensus statement on the emergency management of patients with left-sided Impella support. Using a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process guided by the European Society of Cardiology framework for grading recommendations, expert representatives achieved agreement on key priorities and structured actions to be undertaken in the first few minutes of resuscitation. The consensus outlines early recognition of circulatory inadequacy (mean arterial pressure <30 mm Hg or end-tidal CO₂ <2 kPa), prompt activation of multidisciplinary responders, reduction of Impella power to P2 before initiating cardiopulmonary resuscitation and structured division of patient-focused and device-focused teams. Device-specific troubleshooting algorithms are presented for suction, malposition, purge-system failure and mechanical malfunction. This multisociety consensus represents the first national standard for emergency management and resuscitation of patients supported by a left-sided Impella device and is intended to inform structured clinical training and improve patient outcomes through rapid, coordinated and physiologically tailored interventions.

Background: Despite high rates of cardiovascular disease in Scotland, the prevalence and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock are unknown. Methods: We undertook a prospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit at 13 hospitals in Scotland for a 6-month period. Denominator data from the Scottish Intensive Care Society Audit Group were used to estimate ICU prevalence; data for coronary care units were unavailable. We undertook multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Results: In total, 247 patients with cardiogenic shock were included. After exclusion of coronary care unit admissions, this comprised 3.0% of all ICU admissions during the study period (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6%-3.5%). Aetiology was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 48%. The commonest vasoactive treatment was noradrenaline (56%) followed by adrenaline (46%) and dobutamine (40%). Mechanical circulatory support was used in 30%. Overall in-hospital mortality was 55%. After multivariable logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), admission lactate (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), Society for Cardiovascular Angiographic Intervention stage D or E at presentation (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.10-4.29) and use of adrenaline (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.40-5.40) were associated with mortality. Conclusions: In Scotland the prevalence of cardiogenic shock was 3% of all ICU admissions; more than half died prior to discharge. There was significant variation in treatment approaches, particularly with respect to vasoactive support strategy.

Background: There are 0.9 catheterization labs per 100,000 inhabitants in Scotland for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), which are much less accessible to patients in remote and rural areas. An uncommon but sinister sequalac following AMI is cardiogenic shock (CS) that could be refractory to inotropic support. CS complicates 5-15% of AMIs occurring in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMIs). Outcomes of CS are poor with mortalities of up to 90% reported in the literature in the absence of experienced care. We report our experience as the tertiary referral centre in Scotland for MCS and heart transplantation over 8 years. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was undertaken on all patients registered to the MCS service. The database was interrogated for patient demographics, type of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and duration of MCS support, PCI-outcomes and survival to 30 days. A time-to-event analysis was performed using patient survival as the primary outcome measure. Results: Twenty-three patients (16 male, 7 females) were included. The median age of the patients as 50 years (range, 45-56 years). VA-ECMO was the initial MCS of choice in 17 (73.9%) patients with BIVAD for 4 (17.4%) patients and LVAD for 2 (8.7%) patients. Thirty-day mortality was 21.8% in this cohort, however survival to discharge was 52.2%. Eleven (47.8%) patients recovered without the need for any further support, however only 9 (81.8%) patients in this subgroup survived to discharge. Three (13.0%) patients received a durable LVAD. In this subgroup, one patient was transplanted whereas two patients died due to complications while on support. The median length of in-hospital MCS support was 4 days. Median in-hospital stay was 27 days. Long-term follow up of up to 8 years demonstrates a high mortality beyond 30 days up to the first 6 months post MCS support. Conclusions: MCS usage in these patients carries a high mortality in the early post-implantation period. However, there is a significant benefit to patients who survive the initial bridging period to recovery or destination therapy.

Cardiogenic shock has poor prognosis with medical management alone and/or intra-aortic balloon pump support. Levitronix Centrimag®centrifugal pump has been increasingly used to bridge patients to decision for further advanced mechanical uni- or bi-ventricular support with a view to heart transplantation on the newly implemented super-urgent recipient scheme. We sought to review our experience as a designated centre for mechanical circulatory support to investigate its role despite the emergence of percutaneously implantable miniature devices.

Refractory post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is a relatively rare phenomenon that can lead to rapid multi-organ dysfunction syndrome and is almost invariably fatal without advanced mechanical circulatory support (AMCS), namely extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or ventricular assist devices (VAD). In this multicentre observational study we retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of salvage venoarterial ECMO (VA ECMO) and VAD for refractory PCCS in the 3 adult cardiothoracic surgery centres in Scotland over a 20-year period.

A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL electronic databases was performed. Original research articles reporting all-cause mortality following surgery in patients with aortic regurgitation and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) were identified. Nine of the 10 eligible studies were observational, single-center, retrospective analyses. Survival ranged from 86 to 100% at 30 days; 81 to 100% at 1 year and 68 to 84% at 5 years. Three studies described an improvement in mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following aortic valve replacement (AVR) of 5-14%; a fourth study reported an increase in mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 9% in patients undergoing isolated AVR but not when AVR was combined with coronary artery bypass graft and/or mitral valve surgery. Three studies demonstrated improvements in functional New York Heart Association (NYHA) class following AVR. Additional studies are needed to clarify the benefits of AVR in patients with more extreme degrees of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and the potential roles of cardiac transplantation and transaortic valve implantation.

Objectives: Near-patient viscoelastic tests have proved useful in decreasing blood and blood product use in cardiac surgery. Two different analyzers are available, TEG and ROTEM. Many different individuals operate these devices, which raises concern that this factor may significantly affect results. The present study sought to objectively assess variability in results between operators.Design: Prospective study.Setting: Regional cardiac center.Participants: Adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.Interventions: Thirty-six mL of blood were taken from each of 21 patients. TEG kaolin and functional fibrinogen (FF) analyses and the equivalent ROTEM INTEM S and FIBTEM S analyses were performed. Six operators performed one of each test per patient to assess interoperator variability. One further operator performed 6 of each test per patient to assess intraoperator variability.Measurements and Main Results: All routine measurement parameters were noted and the coefficient of variation (CV) calculated, analyzing comparable parameters. All interoperator CVs were significantly lower for ROTEM analyses compared with TEG. CV for INTEM S CT/ kaolin r time was 4.7 versus 16.3 and MCF/MA was 2.6 versus 4.3 (p < 0.01). Similarly, FIBTEM S MCF/ FF MA was 8.3 versus 12.2. All intraoperator CVs were significantly lower for ROTEM analyses compared with TEG (p < 0.01). CV for INTEM S CT/ kaolin r time was 3.1 versus 9.8 and MCF/ MA was 1.6 versus 4. Similarly, FIBTEM S MCF/ MA was 6.9 versus 12.1.Conclusions: This series of results suggested ROTEM analyses are more reproducible than TEG and, consequently, that ROTEM may be better suited for use in a multiuser environment. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.