Post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) remains one of the most lethal complications of cardiac surgery, with high in-hospital mortality despite major improvements in operative techniques, and intensive care management. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is widely applied as a rescue therapy for refractory PCCS. However, outcomes remain suboptimal, also due to delayed initiation after the onset of severe hemodynamic collapse and irreversible compromised end-organ states. This review summarizes current concepts of PCCS management and evaluates the emerging role of prophylactic tMCS within the framework of “protected cardiac surgery”.
Methods
A narrative review of the current international guidelines, expert consensus statements, and major observational studies addressing post-cardiotomy tMCS and prophylactic support strategies was carried out. Emphasis was placed on pathophysiology, indications, timing of support, and device selection.
Results
Prophylactic tMCS has been applied in selected high-risk scenarios including acute coronary syndromes, acute valvular dysfunction, ventricular septal rupture, papillary muscle rupture, advanced heart failure requiring bridge-to-decision or to-transplant, or difficult and complex weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass. The concepts of preoperative (Type 1), planned intraoperative (Type 2), and unplanned early intraoperative (Type 3) protected cardiac surgery provide a practical framework for a timely evaluation and related action aiming at metabolic stabilization to reduce or prevent postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. Successful implementation depends on multidisciplinary Heart Team decision-making, advanced hemodynamic assessment, and tailored perfusion strategies as well as device selection also based on local resources and expertise.
Conclusions
Prophylactic tMCS represents a paradigm shift from reactive rescue therapy toward proactive cardio-circulatory protection in selected high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery procedures. While early observational data are encouraging, prospective trials, standardized risk stratification tools, and cost-effectiveness analyses are required to define its role in modern cardiac surgery.
D'OnofrioAGerosaG. Technique versus technology and the (r)evolution of cardiac surgery: a professional journey from classical surgery to embracing intervention. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2017; 52: 835–837. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezx276
3.
GrantSWKendallSGoodwinAT, et al.Trends and outcomes for cardiac surgery in the United Kingdom from 2002 to 2016. JTCVS Open2021; 7: 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2021.02.001
4.
LorussoRGelsominoSDe CiccoG, et al.Mitral valve surgery in emergency for severe acute regurgitation: analysis of postoperative results from a multicentre study. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2008; 33: 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.12.050
5.
KedzioraAPiatekJHymczakH, et al.Early postoperative hemodynamic instability after heart transplantation - incidence and metabolic indicators. BMC Anesthesiol2021; 21: 236. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-021-01455-x
6.
Corujo RodriguezARichterEIbekweSO, et al.Postcardiotomy shock syndrome: a narrative review of perioperative diagnosis and management. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2023; 37: 20230912–20232633. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2023.09.011
7.
KowalewskiMZielinskiKBrodieD, et al.Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy shock-analysis of the extracorporeal life support organization registry. Crit Care Med2021; 49: 1107–1117. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004922
8.
MarianiSvan BusselBCTRavauxJM, et al.Variables associated with in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes after postcardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Netherlands heart registration cohort. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2022; 165: 1127–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.08.024
9.
HaddadFCouturePTousignantC, et al.The right ventricle in cardiac surgery, a perioperative perspective: I. Anatomy, physiology, and assessment. Anesth Analg2009; 108: 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e31818f8623
10.
MarianiSHeutsSvan BusselBCT, et al.Patient and management variables associated with survival after postcardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults: the PELS-1 multicenter cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc2023; 12: e029609–e20230708. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.029609
11.
ChioncelOParissisJMebazaaA, et al.Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock - a position statement from the heart failure association of the european society of cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail2020; 22: 1315–1341. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1922
12.
PotapovEVWhitmanGJohnR, et al.EACTS/STS/AATS guidelines on temporary mechanical circulatory support in adult cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg2025: 20251009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2025.09.005
13.
VallabhajosyulaSAroraSSakhujaA, et al.Trends, predictors, and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support for postcardiac surgery cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol2019; 123: 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.029
14.
NaiduSSBaranDAJentzerJC, et al.SCAI SHOCK stage classification expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies: this statement was endorsed by the American college of cardiology (ACC), American college of emergency physicians (ACEP), american heart association (AHA), european society of cardiology (ESC) association for acute cardiovascular care (ACVC), international society for heart and lung transplantation (ISHLT), society of critical care medicine (SCCM), and society of thoracic surgeons (STS) in December 2021. J Am Coll Cardiol2022; 79: 933–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.018
15.
van DiepenSKatzJNAlbertNM, et al.Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation2017; 136: e232. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000525
16.
McDonaghTAMetraMAdamoM, et al.2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J2021; 42: 3599–3726. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368
17.
PuisLMilojevicMBoerC, et al.EACTS/EACTA/EBCP guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2019; 30: 161–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivz251
18.
WahbaAMilojevicMBoerC, et al.EACTS/EACTA/EBCP guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2020; 57: 210–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz267
19.
BusseLWBarkerNPetersenC. Vasoplegic syndrome following cardiothoracic surgery-review of pathophysiology and update of treatment options. Crit Care2020; 24: 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2743-8
20.
DunningJFabbriAKolhPH, et al.Guideline for resuscitation in cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2009; 36: 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.01.033
LorussoRWhitmanGMilojevicM, et al.EACTS/ELSO/STS/AATS expert consensus on post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support in adult patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2021; 161: 1287–1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.09.045
23.
LorussoRShekarKMacLarenG, et al.ELSO interim guidelines for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult cardiac patients. ASAIO J2021; 67: 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1097/mat.0000000000001510
DeWittESBlackKJThiagarajanRR, et al.Effects of commonly used inotropes on myocardial function and oxygen consumption under constant ventricular loading conditions. J Appl Physiol1985; 121: 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00058.2016
26.
FlierlMARittirschDHuber-LangM, et al.Catecholamines-crafty weapons in the inflammatory arsenal of immune/inflammatory cells or opening pandora's box?Mol Med2008; 14: 195–204. https://doi.org/10.2119/2007-00105
27.
HarjolaVPMebazaaACelutkieneJ, et al.Contemporary management of acute right ventricular failure: a statement from the heart failure association and the working group on pulmonary circulation and right ventricular function of the european society of cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail2016; 18: 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.478
28.
LorussoRLo CocoVMarianiS. Left ventricular assist device and right ventricular dysfunction: how to predict and manage a potentially perilous path?Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2021; 60: 186–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezab154
29.
LorussoRRavauxJMMarianiS. Left ventricular assist devices and right ventricular failure prediction: quo vadis?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2021; 33: 793–794. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivab208
30.
DjordjevicIEghbalzadehKSabashnikovA, et al.Single center experience with patients on veno arterial ECMO due to postcardiotomy right ventricular failure. J Card Surg2020; 35: 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14332
31.
LiuKSTsaiFCHuangYK, et al.Extracorporeal life support: a simple and effective weapon for postcardiotomy right ventricular failure. Artif Organs2009; 33: 504–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1594.2009.00734.x
32.
PaganiFD. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation bridge to durable mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol2020; 76: 2965–2967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.001
33.
WongJKJoshiDJMelvinAL, et al.Early and late outcomes with prolonged open chest management after cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2017; 154: 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.03.143
34.
SilvettiSRanucciMPistuddiV, et al.Bloodstream infections during post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: incidence, risk factors, and outcomes. Int J Artif Organs2019; 42: 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0391398818817325
35.
MeaniPGelsominoSNatourE, et al.Modalities and effects of left ventricle unloading on extracorporeal life support: a review of the current literature. Eur J Heart Fail2017; 19(Suppl 2): 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.850
36.
MeaniPLorussoRKowalewskiM, et al.Influence of left ventricular unloading on pediatric post-cardiotomy veno-arterial extracorporeal life support outcomes. Front Cardiovasc Med2022; 9: 970334–20220810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.970334
37.
MeaniPMlcekMKowalewskiM, et al.Transaortic or pulmonary artery drainage for left ventricular unloading in venoarterial extracorporeal life support: a porcine cardiogenic shock model. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2020. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.11.001
38.
KowalewskiMMalvindiPGZielińskiK, et al.Left ventricle unloading with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock. Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med2020; 9: 20200407. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041039
LiCWangHLiuN, et al.The effect of simultaneous renal replacement therapy on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for postcardiotomy patients with cardiogenic shock: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2019; 33: 3063–3072. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2019.02.031
41.
LorussoRRaffaGMAlenizyK, et al.Structured review of post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: part 1-Adult patients. J Heart Lung Transplant2019; 38: 1125–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2019.08.014
42.
LorussoRRaffaGMKowalewskiM, et al.Structured review of post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: part 2-pediatric patients. J Heart Lung Transplant2019; 38: 1144–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2019.07.004
43.
ChengRHachamovitchRKittlesonM, et al.Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg2014; 97: 610–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.09.008
44.
WangLWangHHouX. Clinical outcomes of adult patients who receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2018; 32: 2087–2093. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2018.03.016
45.
YuYLiCZhuS, et al.Diagnosis, pathophysiology and preventive strategies for cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury: a narrative review. Eur J Med Res2023; 28: 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-00990-2
46.
LepereVDuceauBLebretonG, et al.Risk factors for developing severe acute kidney injury in adult patients with refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Med2020; 48: e715–e721. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000004433
ChoSMChoiCWWhitmanG, et al.Neurophysiological findings and brain injury pattern in patients on ECMO. Clin EEG Neurosci2021; 52: 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1550059419892757
50.
LorussoRBariliFMauroMD, et al.In-Hospital neurologic complications in adult patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from the extracorporeal life support organization registry. Crit Care Med2016; 44: e964–e972. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000001865
51.
ToivonenFBiancariFDalenM, et al.Neurologic injury in patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2020. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2020.11.004
52.
BiancariFDalenMFioreA, et al.Multicenter study on postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2020; 159: 1844–1854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.06.039, e1846. 2019/07/31.
53.
FuxTHolmMCorbascioM, et al.Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy shock: risk factors for mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2018; 156: 1894–1902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.05.061
54.
RaffaGMGelsominoSSluijpersN, et al.In-hospital outcome of post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support in adult patients: the 2007-2017 maastricht experience. Crit Care Resusc2017; 19: 53–61.
55.
SaxenaPNealJJoyceLD, et al.Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in postcardiotomy elderly patients: the Mayo clinic experience. Ann Thorac Surg2015; 99: 2053–2060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.11.075
56.
CarrollBJShahRVMurthyV, et al.Clinical features and outcomes in adults with cardiogenic shock supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Am J Cardiol2015; 116: 1624–1630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.08.030
57.
CharlesworthMGarciaMHeadL, et al.Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock-A six-year service evaluation. Artif Organs2020; 44: 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.13647
58.
ChenFWangLShaoJ, et al.Survival following venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock adults. Perfusion2020; 35: 747–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659120931306
59.
GuihaireJDang VanSRouzeS, et al.Clinical outcomes in patients after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a single-centre experience of 92 cases. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2017; 25: 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivx155
60.
KhorsandiMDoughertySSinclairA, et al.A 20-year multicentre outcome analysis of salvage mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock after cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Surg2016; 11: 151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-016-0545-5
61.
PozziMAlvauFArmoiryX, et al.Outcomes after extracorporeal life support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. J Card Surg2019; 34: 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.13985
ClassenDCEvansRSPestotnikSL, et al.The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med1992; 326: 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199201303260501
Heart Protection Study Collaborative G. MRC/BHF heart protection study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet2002; 360: 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09327-3
66.
CzernyMGrabenwogerMBergerT, et al.EACTS/STS guidelines for diagnosing and treating acute and chronic syndromes of the aortic organ. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2024; 65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezad426
67.
WhitlockRPBelley-CoteEPPaparellaD, et al.Left atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery to prevent stroke. N Engl J Med2021; 384: 2081–2091. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2101897
68.
FleckTMFleckMMoidlR, et al.The vacuum-assisted closure system for the treatment of deep sternal wound infections after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg2002; 74: 1596–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(02)03948-6
69.
KowalewskiMKołodziejczakMMUrbanowiczT, et al.Regional antibiotic delivery for sternal wound infection prophylaxis a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep2024; 14: 9690. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60242-z
70.
RaffaGMKowalewskiMMeaniP, et al.In-hospital outcomes after emergency or prophylactic veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a comprehensive review of the literature. Perfusion2019; 34: 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659118816555
71.
MarianiSNappLCKraaierK, et al.Prophylactic mechanical circulatory support for protected ventricular tachycardia ablation: a meta-analysis of the literature. Artif Organs2021; 45: 987–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.13945
72.
DixonSRHenriquesJPMauriL, et al.A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (the PROTECT I trial): initial U.S. experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2009; 2: 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2008.11.005
73.
Di PietroGImprotaRDe FilippoO, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes in patients following protected high-risk PCI. Am J Cardiol2026; 258: 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2025.09.008
74.
O'NeillWWKleimanNSMosesJ, et al.A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation2012; 126: 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.112.098194
75.
LvXCDongYWangL, et al.Benefits of prophylactic veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for high-risk cardiac interventions. BMC Surg2025; 25: 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02835-7
76.
MarianiSWangIWvan BusselBCT, et al.The importance of timing in postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a descriptive multicenter observational study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2023; 166: 20230517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.04.042
77.
LesbekovTMussayevAAlimbayevS, et al.Prophylactic awake peripheral V-A ECMO during TAVR. J Clin Med2023; 12: 20230120. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12030859
78.
ZhaoYSuYDuanR, et al.Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for lung transplantation: initial experience in a single center in China and a literature review. Front Med2022; 9: 950233–20220715. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.950233
79.
JaidkaADeSNagpalAD, et al.Prophylactic right ventricular assist device for high-risk patients undergoing valve corrective surgery. CJC Open2019; 1: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2018.10.001
80.
LorussoRSalazarLNersesianG, et al.EACTS expert consensus document on protected cardiac surgery: pre-emptive use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in adult cardiac surgery patients at high risk for perioperative low cardiac output syndrome. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2025 20251009: ezaf296. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf296
81.
MarianiSBariGRavauxJM, et al.Heterogeneity in clinical practices for post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support: a pilot survey from the PELS-1 multicenter study. Artif Organs2023: 20230623. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14601
82.
RihalCSNaiduSSGivertzMM, et al.SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care (Endorsed by the American Heart Association, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d'intervention). J Card Fail2015; 21: 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.03.002
83.
FerroEGKimJMLalaniC, et al.Mechanical circulatory support for complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention2025; 21: e149–e160. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00386
84.
LawtonJSTamis-HollandJEBangaloreS, et al.2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: executive summary: a report of the American college of cardiology/american heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol2022; 79: 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.005
85.
PeuraJLColvin-AdamsMFrancisGS, et al.Recommendations for the use of mechanical circulatory support: device strategies and patient selection: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation2012; 126: 2648–2667. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182769a54
86.
IbánezBJamesSAgewallS, et al.2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Rev Esp Cardiol2017; 70: 1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2017.11.010
87.
LorussoRCubedduRJMatteucciM, et al.Ventricular pseudoaneurysm and free wall rupture after acute myocardial infarction: JACC focus seminar 4/5. J Am Coll Cardiol2024; 83: 1902–1916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.10.054
88.
ZuinMBikdeliBBallard-HernandezJ, et al.International clinical practice guideline recommendations for acute pulmonary embolism: harmony, dissonance, and silence. J Am Coll Cardiol2024; 84: 1561–1577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.07.044
89.
KonstantinidesSVMeyerGBecattiniC, et al.ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the european respiratory society (ERS). Eur Heart J2020; 41: 543–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405
90.
WatkinsACMaasselNLGhoreishiM, et al.Preoperative venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation slashes risk score in advanced structural heart disease. Ann Thorac Surg2018; 106: 1709–1715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.07.038
91.
VadlakondaABakhtiyarSSEbrahimianS, et al.Examining safety of cardiac surgery in patients with preoperative cardiac arrest. PLoS One2025; 20(20250311): e0319563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319563
92.
Sánchez VegaJAlonsoSGViéitez FlorezJ, et al.Optimal surgical timing after post-infarction ventricular septal rupture. Cardiol J2022; 29: 773–781. https://doi.org/10.5603/CJ.a2022.0035
93.
JacobSPatelMJLimaB, et al.Using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support preoperatively and postoperatively as a successful bridge to recovery in a patient with a large infarct-induced ventricular septal defect. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings2016; 29: 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2016.11929443
94.
RoncoDMatteucciMRavauxJM, et al.Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to definitive treatment in post-infarction ventricular septal rupture. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2021; 14: 1053–1066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2021.02.046
95.
MassimiGMatteucciMKowalewskiM, et al.Surgical treatment of post-infarction papillary muscle rupture: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg2022; 11: 252–260. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2021-ami-15
96.
WangYWangJSunC, et al.The use of venoarterial ECMO as a successful strategy in acute severe mitral regurgitation secondary to papillary muscle rupture due to acute myocardial infarction: a case report and narrative review. Medicine (Baltim)2025; 104: e44646. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000044646
97.
Al-SarrafNMaherAMuddaiahNK, et al.The use of veno-veno-arterial ECMO as a successful strategy in acute mitral regurgitation secondary to papillary muscle rupture causing cardiogenic shock and profound hypoxemia: a case report. J Surg Case Rep2024; 2024: rjae408. https://doi.org/10.1093/jscr/rjae408
98.
AlqadiMQwaiderMHusseinA, et al.OR3-19 | outcomes of acute mitral regurgitation due to papillary muscle rupture: a comparison between mechanical circulatory support using impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump. Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025; 4: 102715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2025.102715
99.
KhalidNShlofmitzECaseBC, et al.Entrapment of the impella heart pump in the mitral subvalvular apparatus. EuroIntervention2021; 16: e1262–e1263. https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-19-00942
100.
ElsherifANadirALudmanPF, et al.Retrieval of entrapped catheter-mounted axial flow pump from mitral subvalvular apparatus using a snare catheter. JACC Case Rep2021; 3: 1494–1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccas.2021.06.041
101.
AbrahamJWangLKumarV, et al.Axillary transvalvular microaxial pump as extended bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement in cardiogenic shock with severe aortic stenosis. J Heart Lung Transplant2022; 41: 434–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2021.12.010
102.
GifftKKumarA. Pushing past boundaries: impella use in severe aortic valve stenosis. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv2023; 2: 101113–20230804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101113
103.
SabharwalATsiourisASlaughterMS, et al.Left atrial-veno arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to surgery for endocarditis-related acute severe aortic regurgitation. Asaio j2024; 70: e61–e64. https://doi.org/10.1097/mat.0000000000002077
104.
SharafOMBobbaCFalasaMP, et al.Impella 5.5 use in the setting of severe aortic insufficiency: a relative contraindication. Annals of Thoracic Surgery Short Reports2024; 2: 578–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atssr.2024.04.012
105.
DelgadoVAjmone MarsanNde WahaS, et al.2023 ESC guidelines for the management of endocarditis. Eur Heart J2023; 44: 3948–4042. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad193
106.
KuriharaCKawaboriMSugiuraT, et al.Bridging to a long-term ventricular assist device with short-term mechanical circulatory support. Artif Organs2018; 42: 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.13112
107.
MeyerDMNayakAWoodKL, et al.The society of thoracic surgeons intermacs 2024 annual report: focus on outcomes in younger patients. Ann Thorac Surg2025; 119: 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.10.003
108.
Dorken-GallastegiAHongYHessNR, et al.Bridge to heart transplant with temporary mechanical circulatory support: trends and outcomes in the 2018 allocation policy era. Asaio j2025; 71: 571–578. https://doi.org/10.1097/mat.0000000000002352
109.
DenaultAYTardifJCMazerCD, et al.Difficult and complex separation from cardiopulmonary bypass in high-risk cardiac surgical patients: a multicenter study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth2012; 26: 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2012.03.031
110.
ChenDXWangTHXiongXL, et al.Incidence, factors, and prognostic analyses of challenging cardiopulmonary bypass separation in Chinese cardiac surgical populations. Minerva Anestesiol2024; 90: 144–153. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0375-9393.23.17727-3
111.
AdamopoulosSBoniosMBen GalT, et al.Right heart failure with left ventricular assist devices: preoperative, perioperative and postoperative management strategies. A clinical consensus statement of the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail2024; 26: 2304–2322. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3323
112.
TakedaKNakaYYangJA, et al.Outcome of unplanned right ventricular assist device support for severe right heart failure after implantable left ventricular assist device insertion. J Heart Lung Transplant2014; 33: 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2013.06.025
113.
DeRooSCTakayamaHNemethS, et al.Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplant. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2019; 158: 1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.02.065
114.
Oude Lansink-HartgringAvan MinnenOVermeulenKM, et al.Hospital costs of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults: a systematic review. Pharmacoecon Open2021; 5: 613–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00272-9
115.
RezaJMilaALedzianB, et al.Incremental cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal membranous oxygenation as a bridge to cardiac transplant or left ventricular assist device placement in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. JTCVS Open2022; 11: 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2022.06.019
116.
LiaoMTLinMHTsaiHE, et al.Risk stratification and cost-effectiveness analysis of adult patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Eval Clin Pract2022; 28: 615–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13681
