Literature DB >> 28953199

The Utility of a Wireless Implantable Hemodynamic Monitoring System in Patients Requiring Mechanical Circulatory Support.

David S Feldman1,2, Nader Moazami3, Philip B Adamson4, Juliane Vierecke2, Nirav Raval5, Satya Shreenivas1, Barry M Cabuay6, Javier Jimenez7, William T Abraham8, John B O'Connell4, Yoshifumi Naka9.   

Abstract

Proper timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in advanced heart failure patients is not well established and is an area of intense interest. In addition, optimizing LVAD performance after implantation remains difficult and represents a significant clinical need. Implantable hemodynamic monitoring systems may provide physicians with the physiologic information necessary to improve the timing of LVAD implantation as well as LVAD performance when compared with current methods. The CardioMEMS Heart sensor Allows for Monitoirng of Pressures to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III heart failure patients (CHAMPION) Trial enrolled 550 previously hospitalized patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure. All patients were implanted with a pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring system and randomized to a treatment and control groups. In the treatment group, physicians used the hemodynamic information to make heart failure management decisions. This information was not available to physicians for the control group. During an average of 18 month randomized follow-up, 27 patients required LVAD implantation. At the time of PA pressure sensor implantation, patients ultimately requiring advanced therapy had higher PA pressures, lower systemic pressure, and similar cardiac output measurements. Treatment and control patients in the LVAD subgroup had similar clinical profiles at the time of enrollment. There was a trend toward a shorter length of time to LVAD implantation in the treatment group when hemodynamic information was available. After LVAD implantation, most treatment group patients continued to provide physicians with physiologic information from the hemodynamic monitoring system. As expected PA pressures declined significantly post LVAD implant in all patients, but the magnitude of decline was higher in patients with PA pressure monitoring. Implantable hemodynamic monitoring appeared to improve the timing of LVAD implantation as well as optimize LVAD performance when compared with current methods. Further studies are necessary to evaluate these findings in a prospective manner.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28953199     DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000670

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ASAIO J        ISSN: 1058-2916            Impact factor:   2.872


  10 in total

Review 1.  Remote monitoring for better management of LVAD patients: the potential benefits of CardioMEMS.

Authors:  Jesse F Veenis; Jasper J Brugts
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2020-01-24

2.  Optimal Hemodynamics During Left Ventricular Assist Device Support Are Associated With Reduced Readmission Rates.

Authors:  Teruhiko Imamura; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Gene Kim; Jayant Raikhelkar; Nitasha Sarswat; Sara Kalantari; Bryan Smith; Daniel Rodgers; Stephanie Besser; Ben Chung; Ann Nguyen; Nikhil Narang; Takeyoshi Ota; Tae Song; Colleen Juricek; Mandeep Mehra; Maria Rosa Costanzo; Ulrich P Jorde; Daniel Burkhoff; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 8.790

Review 3.  CardioMEMS: where we are and where can we go?

Authors:  Issa Pour-Ghaz; David Hana; Joel Raja; Uzoma N Ibebuogu; Rami N Khouzam
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

4.  Hemodynamic Effects of Concomitant Mitral Valve Surgery and Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Authors:  Teruhiko Imamura; Jerry Nnanabu; Daniel Rodgers; Jayant Raikehlkar; Sara Kalantar; Bryan Smith; Ann Nguyen; Ben Chung; Nikhil Narang; Takeyoshi Ota; Tae Song; Daniel Burkhoff; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Gene Kim; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.826

5.  Design and rationale of haemodynamic guidance with CardioMEMS in patients with a left ventricular assist device: the HEMO-VAD pilot study.

Authors:  Jesse F Veenis; Olivier C Manintveld; Alina A Constantinescu; Kadir Caliskan; Ozcan Birim; Jos A Bekkers; Nicolas M van Mieghem; Corstiaan A den Uil; Eric Boersma; Mattie J Lenzen; Felix Zijlstra; William T Abraham; Philip B Adamson; Jasper J Brugts
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2019-01-07

6.  Pulmonary artery pressure telemonitoring by CardioMEMS in a patient pre- and post-left ventricular assist device implantation.

Authors:  Jesse F Veenis; Ozcan Birim; Jasper J Brugts
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.191

Review 7.  Left Ventricular Assist Devices 101: Shared Care for General Cardiologists and Primary Care.

Authors:  Aditi Singhvi; Barry Trachtenberg
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Implantable hemodynamic monitoring and management of left ventricular assist devices: Optimal or optional?

Authors:  Brent C Lampert; Jeffrey J Teuteberg
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2021-09-24

9.  Is Ambulatory Hemodynamic Monitoring Beneficial to Patients With Advanced Heart Failure?

Authors:  Alexandros Briasoulis; Paulino Alvarez
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 5.501

10.  Changes in pulmonary artery pressure before and after left ventricular assist device implantation in patients utilizing remote haemodynamic monitoring.

Authors:  Ahmet Kilic; Jason N Katz; Susan M Joseph; Meredith A Brisco-Bacik; Nir Uriel; Brian Lima; Rahul Agarwal; Rupinder Bharmi; David J Farrar; Sangjin Lee
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2018-10-23
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.