Literature DB >> 20880553

Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support.

Yoan Lamarche1, Anson Cheung, Andrew Ignaszewski, Jennifer Higgins, Annemarie Kaan, Donald E G Griesdale, Robert Moss.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cardiogenic shock is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Extracorporeal life support is used in most centers for short-term circulatory support. Alternatively, the Impella LP 5.0 and right direct (RD) microaxial ventricular assist device (Abiomed, Danvers, Mass) can provide isolated left and right ventricular support, respectively.
METHODS: A retrospective, single center review was performed on all patients receiving circulatory assistance with either extracorporeal life support or Impella ventricular assist device. All Impella LP 5.0 were inserted via the femoral artery, while the RD system required sternotomy.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients received ventricular assist device support (Impella LP 5.0; n = 24; and Impella RD; n = 5), whereas 32 patients were placed on extracorporeal life support. The baseline characteristics of patients with cardiogenic shock, assisted by Impella or extracorporeal life support, were similar, but the etiology of cardiogenic shock was distributed differently in the 2 groups (P = .008). Forty-one percent of the Impella patients and 47% of the extracorporeal life support patients were weaned from support. The 30-day mortality (44% in the extracorporeal life support vs 38% in the Impella group) and proportion of patients discharged home (41% in the extracorporeal life support vs 59% in the Impella group) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Arterial thrombosis was less frequent in the Impella group (3.4% vs 18.8%; P = .04). Blood product transfusions were less frequent in the Impella group (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both extracorporeal life support and axial flow pumps provided adequate support in patients with various etiologies of cardiogenic shock. Axial-flow pump may be an optimal type of support for patients with univentricular failure, whereas extracorporeal life support could be reserved for patients with biventricular failure or combined respiratory and circulatory failure.
Copyright © 2011 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20880553     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.07.075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  22 in total

1.  The future of adult cardiac assist devices: novel systems and mechanical circulatory support strategies.

Authors:  Carlo R Bartoli; Robert D Dowling
Journal:  Cardiol Clin       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 2.213

Review 2.  Cellular responses to mild heat stress.

Authors:  H G Park; S I Han; S Y Oh; H S Kang
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 9.261

Review 3.  [Mechanical support in cardiogenic shock].

Authors:  T Graf; H Thiele
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 4.  [Cardiac support and replacement systems].

Authors:  T Graf; H Thiele
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 0.840

Review 5.  Extracorporeal life support in critically ill adults.

Authors:  Corey E Ventetuolo; Christopher S Muratore
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 21.405

6.  Role of percutaneous veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as bridge to left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Koichi Toda; Tomoyuki Fujita; Osamu Seguchi; Masanobu Yanase; Takeshi Nakatani
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 1.731

Review 7.  Mechanical bridge to decision: what are the options for the management of acute refractory cardiogenic shock?

Authors:  Daniel Goldstein; Siyamek Neragi-Miandoab
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2011-03

Review 8.  Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 2: Role of mechanical circulatory support.

Authors:  Stephen Westaby; Kyriakos Anastasiadis; George M Wieselthaler
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 32.419

9.  Using the Minimally Invasive Impella 5.0 via the Right Subclavian Artery Cutdown for Acute on Chronic Decompensated Heart Failure as a Bridge to Decision.

Authors:  Aditya Bansal; Jay K Bhama; Rajan Patel; Sapna Desai; Stacy A Mandras; Hamang Patel; Tyrone Collins; John P Reilly; Hector O Ventura; P Eugene Parrino
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2016

10.  Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support (Impella) in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and/or Cardiogenic Shock Not Eligible to PROTECT II Trial.

Authors:  Wei Liu; Venkata Kishore Mukku; Syed Gilani; Ken Fujise; Alejandro Barbagelata
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2013-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.