Literature DB >> 24648428

Preoperative patient optimization using extracorporeal life support improves outcomes of INTERMACS Level I patients receiving a permanent ventricular assist device.

Julia Riebandt1, Thomas Haberl1, Stephane Mahr1, Guenther Laufer2, Angela Rajek3, Barbara Steinlechner3, Heinrich Schima4, Daniel Zimpfer5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Interagency Registry for Mechanical Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Level I patients have the highest early mortality after ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation. This is determined by the exposure of patients in shock with acutely damaged end-organs and high catecholamine support to a significant surgical trauma. We report our experience with a bridge-to-bridge concept consisting of initial veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and deferral of VAD implantation to recovery of end-organ function in INTERMACS Level I patients.
METHODS: We reviewed the concept of initial ECLS implantation and deferral of VAD implantation to end-organ recovery in 22 consecutive patients (mean age 54 ± 14 years; 72.2% males; 50% ischemic cardiomyopathy; 100% INTERMACS Level I; 18.2% Heartmate II, 68.2% Heartware HVAD, 4.5% Heartware BiVAD, 9.1% DeBakey LVAD) receiving a VAD for refractory cardiogenic shock between June 2004 and February 2013. Study endpoints were end-organ recovery during ECLS and survival.
RESULTS: ECLS significantly improved renal (creatinine 1.86 ± 0.91 vs 1.32 ± 0.52 mg/dl, P = 0.02), hepatic (aspartate aminotransferase 1426 ± 2176 vs 277 ± 259 U/l, P = 0.04; alanine aminotransferase 982 ± 1466 vs 357 ± 447 U/l, P = 0.04) and pulmonary functions (fraction of inspired oxygen 52 ± 18 vs 26 ± 23%, P < 0.01; positive end-expiratory pressure 7 ± 3 vs 5 ± 4 mbar, P = 0.02) over a period of 8 ± 7 days. Catecholamines could be reduced during ECLS (levosimendan 0.056 ± 0.085 vs 0.010 ± 0.032 μg/kg/min, P = 0.06; dobutamine 4.362 ± 5.268 vs 0.056 ± 0.097 μg/kg/min, P = 0.06; noradrenaline 0.408 ± 0.355 vs 0.056 ± 0.097 μg/kg/min, P < 0.01). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality after VAD implantation were 4.5 and 9.1%, respectively, and 1-year survival was 86.4%.
CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative patient optimization using ECLS improves outcomes of INTERMACS Level I patients receiving a permanent VAD.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Extracorporeal life support; INTERMACS Level; Ventricular assist device

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24648428     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu093

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  13 in total

Review 1.  Current status of extracorporeal ventricular assist devices in Japan.

Authors:  Takashi Nishimura
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2014-06-22       Impact factor: 1.731

2.  Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  Deepak Acharya; Renzo Y Loyaga-Rendon; Salpy V Pamboukian; José A Tallaj; William L Holman; Ryan S Cantor; David C Naftel; James K Kirklin
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Therapeutic options in advanced heart failure.

Authors:  Tarek Bekfani; Florian Westphal; P Christian Schulze
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 4.  Current practice in patient selecting for long-term mechanical circulatory support.

Authors:  M S Halbreiner; E Soltesz; R Starling; N Moazami
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2015-04

5.  Temporary biventricular support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a feasible therapeutic approach for cardiogenic shock with multiple organ failure.

Authors:  Osamu Seguchi; Tomoyuki Fujita; Takuya Watanabe; Kensuke Kuroda; Eriko Hisamatsu; Seiko Nakajima; Takuma Sato; Haruki Sunami; Masanobu Yanase; Hiroki Hata; Junjiro Kobayashi; Takeshi Nakatani; Norihide Fukushima
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 1.731

6.  Results of extracorporeal life support implementation in routine clinical practice: single center experience.

Authors:  Bojan Biočina; Mate Petričević; Dražen Belina; Hrvoje Gašparović; Lucija Svetina; Sanja Konosić; Alexandra White; Višnja Ivančan; Tomislav Kopjar; Davor Miličić
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.351

7.  Extracorporeal life support prior to left ventricular assist device implantation leads to improvement of the patients INTERMACS levels and outcome.

Authors:  David Schibilsky; Christoph Haller; Bruno Lange; Barbara Schibilsky; Helene Haeberle; Peter Seizer; Meinrad Gawaz; Peter Rosenberger; Tobias Walker; Christian Schlensak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Extracorporeal life support to ventricular assist device: potential benefits of sternal-sparing approach.

Authors:  Fabio M Sagebin; Brian C Ayers; Katherine Wood; Bryan Barrus; Leway Chen; Jeffrey Alexis; Himabindu Vidula; Sabu Thomas; Eugene Storozynsky; Sunil Prasad; Igor Gosev
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.895

9.  Minimally invasive surgery improves outcome of left ventricular assist device surgery in cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Leonhard Wert; Anamika Chatterjee; Günes Dogan; Jasmin S Hanke; Dietmar Boethig; Kirstin A Tümler; L Christian Napp; Dominik Berliner; Christina Feldmann; Christian Kuehn; Andreas Martens; Malakh L Shrestha; Axel Haverich; Jan D Schmitto
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 10.  Extracorporeal life support in cardiogenic shock: indications and management in current practice.

Authors:  C L Meuwese; F Z Ramjankhan; S A Braithwaite; N de Jonge; M de Jong; M P Buijsrogge; J G D Janssen; C Klöpping; J H Kirkels; D W Donker
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 2.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.