Literature DB >> 29404355

When more is not better-appropriately excluding patients from mechanical circulatory support therapy.

Mannu Nayyar1, Kevin Michael Donovan1, Rami N Khouzam1.   

Abstract

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are continually evolving and are providing greater hemodynamic support. This review was conducted to evaluate the prophylactic use of MCS in hemodynamically stable patients who were awaiting future coronary artery revascularization. A thorough review of published literature was conducted to evaluate for patients and clinical scenarios that are indicated for MCS, including hemodynamically stable and unstable patients awaiting revascularization. Although there have been several studies demonstrating the benefit of MCS use in hemodynamically unstable patients, there was limited trials in patients that were hemodynamically stable. The use of prophylactic MCS was limited to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in "high risk" patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This review article was conducted to evaluate for possible prophylactic MCS in patients awaiting revascularization. In hemodynamically stable patients, literature is limited to the use of IABP for "high-risk" patients awaiting CABG. A thorough review of literature suggest that hemodynamically stable patients likely would not benefit from prophylactic placement MCS while awaiting revascularization although further clinical trials are needed to identify the ideal patients and clinical scenarios for the use of MCS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary artery bypass; coronary vessels; heart; heart-assist devices; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)

Year:  2018        PMID: 29404355      PMCID: PMC5787727          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2017.09.26

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  19 in total

1.  Optimal timing of preoperative intraaortic balloon pump support in high-risk coronary patients.

Authors:  J T Christenson; F Simonet; P Badel; M Schmuziger
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Authors:  Glenn N Levine; Eric R Bates; James C Blankenship; Steven R Bailey; John A Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E Chambers; Stephen G Ellis; Robert A Guyton; Steven M Hollenberg; Umesh N Khot; Richard A Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam D Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Henry H Ting
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  The preoperative intraaortic balloon pump in coronary bypass surgery: a lack of evidence of effectiveness.

Authors:  Roger J F Baskett; Gerald T O'Connor; Gregory M Hirsch; William A Ghali; Kathryn A Sabadosa; Jeremy R Morton; Cathy S Ross; Felix Hernandez; William C Nugent; Stephen J Lahey; Donato Sisto; Lawrence J Dacey; John D Klemperer; Robert E Helm; Andrew Maitland
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.749

4.  Optimizing rotational atherectomy in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from the PROTECT ΙΙ study.

Authors:  Mauricio G Cohen; Abhijit Ghatak; Neal S Kleiman; Srihari S Naidu; Joseph M Massaro; Ajay J Kirtane; Jeffrey Moses; E Magnus Ohman; Vladimír Džavík; Igor F Palacios; Alan W Heldman; Jeffrey J Popma; William W O'Neill
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study.

Authors:  William W O'Neill; Neal S Kleiman; Jeffrey Moses; Jose P S Henriques; Simon Dixon; Joseph Massaro; Igor Palacios; Brijeshwar Maini; Suresh Mulukutla; Vladimír Dzavík; Jeffrey Popma; Pamela S Douglas; Magnus Ohman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  The science behind percutaneous hemodynamic support: a review and comparison of support strategies.

Authors:  Daniel Burkhoff; Srihari S Naidu
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Small coronary vessel pressure and diameter in an intact beating rabbit heart using fixed-position and free-motion techniques.

Authors:  S H Nellis; A J Liedtke; L Whitesell
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 8.  A Practical Approach to Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Interventional Perspective.

Authors:  Tamara M Atkinson; E Magnus Ohman; William W O'Neill; Tanveer Rab; Joaquin E Cigarroa
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 11.195

Review 9.  Hemodynamics of Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Authors:  Daniel Burkhoff; Gabriel Sayer; Darshan Doshi; Nir Uriel
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  The Effects of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps on Mortality in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Coronary Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Stenting Era.

Authors:  You-Dong Wan; Tong-Wen Sun; Quan-Cheng Kan; Fang-Xia Guan; Zi-Qi Liu; Shu-Guang Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.