Literature DB >> 21602670

The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience.

Annemarie E Engström1, Ricardo Cocchieri, Antoine H Driessen, Krischan D Sjauw, Marije M Vis, Jan Baan, Mark de Jong, Wim K Lagrand, Jos A P van der Sloot, Jan G Tijssen, Robbert J de Winter, Bas A S de Mol, Jan J Piek, José P J M Henriques.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cardiogenic shock remains an important therapeutic challenge, with high in-hospital mortality rates. Mechanical circulatory support may be beneficial in these patients. Since the efficacy of the intra-aortic balloon pump seems limited, new percutaneously placed mechanical left ventricular support devices, such as the Impella system, have been developed for this purpose. Our current purpose was to describe our experience with the Impella system in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting in profound cardiogenic shock, who were admitted to our intensive care unit for mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: From January 2004 through August 2010, a total of 34 ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with profound cardiogenic shock were admitted to our intensive care unit and treated with either the Impella 2.5 or the Impella 5.0 device. Baseline and follow-up characteristics were collected retrospectively.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Within the study cohort, 25 patients initially received treatment with the Impella 2.5, whereas nine patients received immediate Impella 5.0 support. Eight out of 25 patients in the Impella 2.5 group were upgraded to 5.0 support. After 48 hrs, 14 of 25 patients in the 2.5 group were alive, five of whom had been upgraded. In the 5.0 group, eight out of nine patients were alive. After 30 days, six of 25 patients in the 2.5 group were alive, three of whom had been upgraded. In the 5.0 group, three of nine patients were alive at 30 days.
CONCLUSIONS: In ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with severe and profound cardiogenic shock, our initial experience suggests improved survival in patients who received immediate Impella 5.0 treatment, as well as in patients who were upgraded from 2.5 to 5.0 support, when compared to patients who received only Impella 2.5 support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21602670     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31821e89b5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  23 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  Phagocytosis of apoptotic cells: a matter of balance.

Authors:  C J G de Almeida; R Linden
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2005-07       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.  The ICM research agenda on extracorporeal life support.

Authors:  Alain Combes; Dan Brodie; Yih-Sharng Chen; Eddy Fan; José P S Henriques; Carol Hodgson; Philipp M Lepper; Pascal Leprince; Kunihiko Maekawa; Thomas Muller; Sebastian Nuding; Dagmar M Ouweneel; Antoine Roch; Matthieu Schmidt; Hiroo Takayama; Alain Vuylsteke; Karl Werdan; Laurent Papazian
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  In Reference to Trends, Etiologies, and Predictors of 90-Day Readmission After Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A National Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  James J Glazier; Amir Kaki
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2018-07-17       Impact factor: 2.882

7.  Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Kevin J Morine; Navin K Kapur
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2016-01

8.  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

Review 9.  Advanced Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  P Elliott Miller; Michael A Solomon; Dorothea McAreavey
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 10.  Causes and treatment of oedema in patients with heart failure.

Authors:  Andrew L Clark; John G F Cleland
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 32.419

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.