Zimpfer, Daniel

Abstract Perioperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) remains a significant complication in adult cardiac surgery, contributing to substantial morbidity, prolonged intensive care, and increased mortality. Its incidence is expected to rise further due to the evolving complexity of referred surgical patients, often characterised by advanced age, multiple comorbidities, challenging anatomy, and impaired haemodynamics. Despite advances in pharmacological and perioperative care, outcomes for high-risk patients have not shown significant improvement, prompting interest in temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) as a proactive strategy. This Expert Consensus Document from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) presents the first dedicated guidance on the pre-emptive use of tMCS in high-risk adult cardiac surgical patients. Developed by a multidisciplinary task force, it emphasises structured risk stratification, early initiation, and individualised device management informed by interdisciplinary Heart Team discussions. The document proposes clinical pathways for patient selection, defines criteria for tMCS initiation, and provides practical algorithms for various scenarios, including advanced heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and post-cardiotomy LCOS. It reviews the current evidence on available tMCS devices, such as intra-aortic balloon pumps, microaxial flow pumps, veno-arterial extracorporeal life support and hybrid strategies, and addresses perioperative care, intensive care unit protocols, ethical considerations, as well as informed consent and support withdrawal. Despite promising results, substantial knowledge gaps remain, including long-term outcome data, device selection criteria, and cost-effectiveness analyses. This consensus aims to support clinical decision-making, standardise practice, and stimulate research to improve outcomes in a growing population of high-risk surgical patients.

International normalized ratio (INR) measurements manage risks of bleeding and clotting sequelae in the population with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Studies suggest that point-of-care (POC) INR does not significantly differ from plasma INR (P-INR) values in other patient populations, although this has not been validated in a multicenter LVAD study. We sought to determine whether POC-INR and P-INR values differ significantly in the LVAD population and reviewed patients with permanent LVAD implantation at seven institutions internationally. Our cohort comprised of 279 paired POC-INR and P-INR checks in patients supported on average 630 ± 598 days postimplant with predominately HeartWare, HeartMate II, and HeartMate III devices. The population averaged 57.9 years of age, and there were 86.7% male. We found no statistically significant difference between POC-INR and P-INR values. International normalized ratio accuracy correlated weakly with the time between INR measurements (p < 0.001). When the time difference was less than 4 hours, the difference between INR pairs was significantly lower than measurements greater than 8 hours (p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference when comparing paired INR values and time after implant to INR check (p = 0.43), age (p = 0.12), known coagulopathy (p = 0.12), bleeding history (p = 0.22), or thrombosis history (p = 0.34). This is the first large multicenter international study comparing POC-INR and P-INR measurements in patients with LVAD and found no statistically significant difference between either methods, particularly when measured within less than 4 hours of each other.