Bernard J. Miller, MD, ScD.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/Pomalidomide(CC-4047).html  (Hon), FACS, is known as a critical contributor for his work in the John H. Gibbon, MD, laboratory for his work on the heart-lung machine (HLM). In this setting, Dr. Miller developed the fluid control servo system, which was necessary to prevent malfunctioning of the HLM and prevent air emboli. Additionally, Dr. Miller assisted in conceiving and testing the left ventricular vent, the positive-negative pressure ventilator, and the HLM oxygenator; these inventions were all the product of extensive collaboration between the International Business Machines Corporation and the members of Dr. Gibbon's laboratory. Furthermore, Dr. Miller was a surgical assistant and perfusionist in the first successful open-heart surgery. Herein, we seek to describe Dr. Miller's story and his contributions to the HLM, as well as the contributions that were developed by the laboratory at that time. Additionally, we describe critical events leading up to the first successful use of the HLM on May 6, 1953, including a previously unreported use of the HLM for partial bypass of the right heart at Pennsylvania Hospital in 1952. Finally, we present the rest of Dr. Miller's professional and personal successes after his work on the HLM ended.The duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatments increases, however, data presented from prolonged support is limited. We retrospectively analyzed all patients during a 4-year period undergoing respiratory ECMO for duration of therapy, demographics, therapy-associated parameters, and outcome according to ECMO duration ( less then 28 days and ≥28 days = long-term ECMO). Out of 55 patients undergoing ECMO for ARDS or during bridging to lung transplantation, 18 were on ECMO for ≥28 days (33%). In the long-term group, median ECMO run time was 40 days (interquartile range 34-54 days). Hospital survival was not significantly different between the groups (54% in short-term and 50% in long-term ECMO patients). There was a significantly higher proportion of patients suffering from malignancy in the group of long-term nonsurvivors. Recovery occurred after more than 40 days on ECMO in 3 patients. The longest ECMO run time in a hospital survivor was 65 days. Duration of ECMO support alone was no prognostic factor and should not represent a basis for decision-making. In patients suffering from malignancy, long-term ECMO support seems to be a factor of adverse prognosis, if not futile.Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in acute respiratory failure is increasing. We aim to compare characteristics and outcomes of patients with prolonged (≥21 days) veno-venous (VV) ECMO runs (pECMO), to patients with short ( less then 21 days) VV ECMO runs (sECMO). The observational retrospective single-center study compared patients who received VV ECMO from January 2018 to June 2019 at Prince Mohamed Bin Abdulaziz Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Forty-three patients were supported with VV ECMO during the study period, of whom 37 are included as six patients were still receiving ECMO at time of data collection 24 sECMO and 13 pECMO patients. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were similar except pECMO patients were older and had a lower P/F ratio (61 [58-68] vs. 71[58-85.5], p = 0.05). Survival to hospital discharge (69% vs. 83%, p = 0.32; pECMO vs. sECMO) and 90 day survival (62% vs. 75%, p = 0.413; pECMO vs. sECMO) were similar among groups. At 1 year follow-up, all patients were still alive and independently functioning except for one patient in the pECMO group who required a walking aid related to trauma. In this single-center study, patients requiring pECMO had similar short- and long-term survival to those requiring sECMO duration.Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) is a last resort treatment option for patients with acute respiratory failure (acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]). Cytokine adsorption has been incorporated in the management of some of these patients on an individual basis to control the imbalance of danger-associated molecular patterns and proinflammatory cytokines. However, little is known about the combination of V-V ECMO and cytokine adsorption as earlier reports contained mixed patient cohorts in terms of disease and mode of ECMO, veno-venous and veno-arterial. We here report single-center registry data of nine all-comers with severe ARDS treated with V-V ECMO and cytokine adsorption using the CytoSorb adsorber compared with a control group of nine propensity score matched patients undergoing V-V ECMO support without cytokine adsorption. Even though Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction and PRedicting dEath for SEvere ARDS on V-V ECMO scores predicted a higher mortality in the cytokine adsorption group, mortality was numerically reduced in the patients undergoing V-V ECMO and cytokine removal compared with V-V ECMO alone. The need for fluid resuscitation and vasopressor support as well as lactate levels dropped significantly in the cytokine adsorption group within 72 hours, whereas vasopressor need and lactate levels did not decrease significantly in the control group. Therefore, our data suggest that cytokine adsorption might be beneficial in patients with severe ARDS requiring V-V ECMO support.Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common cause of morbidity among patients supported by left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). The aim of this study was to identify if pre-LVAD right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is associated with risk of GIB after LVAD implantation. Of 398 patients implanted with LVADs between July 2008 and July 2016, 130 (33%) developed GIB at a median of 2.6 months following LVAD implantation. Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) were found in 42 (34%) GIB patients. Patients with GIB were older and more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. On pre-LVAD echocardiography, GIB patients had increased RV diastolic dimension (4.7 ± 0.8 vs. 4.4 ± 0.9 cm, p = 0.02), a higher rate of greater than mild tricuspid valve (TV) regurgitation (73 [60%] vs. 120 [47%], p = 0.006), and underwent TV repair more often (38 [30%] vs. 43 [16%], p = 0.0006) during LVAD implantation. After multivariable adjustment, preoperative greater than mild RV enlargement (hazard ratio [HR] 2.32, 95% CI 1.