Literature DB >> 29240628

Circulatory Support with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and/or Impella for Cardiogenic Shock During Myocardial Infarction.

Marc Mourad1, Philippe Gaudard1,2, Pablo De La Arena1, Jacob Eliet1, Norddine Zeroual1, Philippe Rouvière3, François Roubille2,4, Bernard Albat3, Pascal H Colson1,5.   

Abstract

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) is recommended for patients with profound cardiogenic shock (CS). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Impella are possible TCS devices, but the device choice and the implantation timing are not definitely established, specifically during acute myocardial infarction. We have analyzed the respective use of ECMO or Impella (2.5, CP, or 5.0) for CS following acute myocardial infarction, from a cohort of patients who underwent TCS within 72 hours after admission for emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2009 to April 2015. Among 88 TCS-treated patients, 42 had early TCS: 23 ECMO and 19 Impella. Cardiac management, including PCI, was similar between the two groups, but ECMO patients were sicker than Impella patients (higher blood lactate level at ICU admission, higher vasoactive-inotroic and ENCOURAGE scores before TCS implantation, p ≤ 0.02). Three patients (7%) have had TCS implantation before admission, but TCS was implanted mostly in cathlab (43%, 1 during PCI, 13 just after PCI) or soon after ICU admission (50%, n = 21). Modification of the initial TCS choice was required in 10 cases (24%) for assistance upgrading in case of Impella (n = 4) or for left ventricle unloading in case of ECMO (n = 6). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is the technique of choice in case of profound CS, whereas Impella devices seem more appropriate for less severe hemodynamic compromise. Interestingly, the combination of both techniques may help to overcome the limits inherent to each device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29240628     DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000704

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


  9 in total

1.  Successful extracorporeal membrane oxygenation assisted revascularisation in a high-risk elderly patient refused surgical treatment.

Authors:  Robertas Samalavičius; Lina Puodžiukaitė; Vytautas Abraitis; Ieva Norkienė; Nadežda Ščupakova; Justina Pekarskienė; Aleksejus Zorinas; Kęstutis Ručinskas; Pranas Šerpytis
Journal:  Acta Med Litu       Date:  2019

Review 2.  'Combat' Approach to Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Alexander G Truesdell; Behnam Tehrani; Ramesh Singh; Shashank Desai; Patricia Saulino; Scott Barnett; Stephen Lavanier; Charles Murphy
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2018-05

3.  Prospective Comparison of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device and Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Authors:  A Reshad Garan; Koji Takeda; Michael Salna; John Vandenberge; Darshan Doshi; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; Ajay J Kirtane; Hiroo Takayama; Paul Kurlansky
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 5.501

Review 4.  Complications of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: An Appraisal of Contemporary Literature.

Authors:  Anna V Subramaniam; Gregory W Barsness; Saarwaani Vallabhajosyula; Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula
Journal:  Cardiol Ther       Date:  2019-10-23

5.  Outcomes of VA-ECMO with and without Left Centricular (LV) Decompression Using Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (IABP) versus Other LV Decompression Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Pan Pan; Peng Yan; Dawei Liu; Xiaoting Wang; Xiang Zhou; Yun Long; Kun Xiao; Weiguo Zhao; Lixin Xie; Longxiang Su
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-07-30

6.  Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qun Zhang; Yu Han; Shukun Sun; Chuanxin Zhang; Han Liu; Bailu Wang; Shujian Wei
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2022-02-13       Impact factor: 2.298

7.  Impella versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Riley J Batchelor; Andrew Wheelahan; Wayne C Zheng; Dion Stub; Yang Yang; William Chan
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 4.964

8.  Pulse pressure and end-tidal carbon dioxide for monitoring low native cardiac output during veno-arterial ECLS: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Marc Mourad; Jacob Eliet; Norddine Zeroual; Marine Saour; Pierre Sentenac; Federico Manna; Nicolas Molinari; Thomas Gandet; Pascal H Colson; Philippe Gaudard
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis.

Authors:  Konstantinos Karatolios; Georgios Chatzis; Birgit Markus; Ulrich Luesebrink; Holger Ahrens; Dimitar Divchev; Styliani Syntila; Andreas Jerrentrup; Bernhard Schieffer
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2020-11-13       Impact factor: 5.460

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.