BACKGROUND: The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in the treatment of cardiogenic shock has increased. However, limitations in flow capability, ventricular unloading effect, durability, and mobility remain. We reviewed our single-center experience with continuous-flow external ventricular assist devices (VADs) to determine the role of temporary VADs for cardiogenic shock in the contemporary MCS era. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 252 patients who underwent continuous-flow external VAD insertion between January 2007 and December 2016. To investigate the change in indications, device configurations, and outcomes, we divided the cohort into 2 groups-2007 to 2011 (Era 1; n = 127) and 2012 to 2016 (Era 2; n = 125)-and compared early and late outcomes. RESULTS: Indications and device configurations changed significantly over time. The use of preoperative percutaneous MCS (53% vs 23%; P < .01) and use of minimally invasive VAD configurations (23% vs 6.7%; P < .01) were greater in Era 2 compared with Era 1. The rate of bridge to the next destinations, including myocardial recovery, transplantation, and durable VAD, was similar in the 2 groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly better in Era 2 (50% vs 37%; P = .04). Overall survival at 1 year was 57% in Era 2 versus 43% in Era 1 (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Better outcomes in the recent era could be associated with the changes in practice patterns using continuous-flow external VAD in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock.
BACKGROUND: The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in the treatment of cardiogenic shock has increased. However, limitations in flow capability, ventricular unloading effect, durability, and mobility remain. We reviewed our single-center experience with continuous-flow external ventricular assist devices (VADs) to determine the role of temporary VADs for cardiogenic shock in the contemporary MCS era. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 252 patients who underwent continuous-flow external VAD insertion between January 2007 and December 2016. To investigate the change in indications, device configurations, and outcomes, we divided the cohort into 2 groups-2007 to 2011 (Era 1; n = 127) and 2012 to 2016 (Era 2; n = 125)-and compared early and late outcomes. RESULTS: Indications and device configurations changed significantly over time. The use of preoperative percutaneous MCS (53% vs 23%; P < .01) and use of minimally invasive VAD configurations (23% vs 6.7%; P < .01) were greater in Era 2 compared with Era 1. The rate of bridge to the next destinations, including myocardial recovery, transplantation, and durable VAD, was similar in the 2 groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly better in Era 2 (50% vs 37%; P = .04). Overall survival at 1 year was 57% in Era 2 versus 43% in Era 1 (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Better outcomes in the recent era could be associated with the changes in practice patterns using continuous-flow external VAD in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock.
Authors: Gaik Nersesian; Felix Hennig; Marcus Müller; Johanna Mulzer; Dmytro Tsyganenko; Christoph Starck; Tom Gromann; Volkmar Falk; Evgenij Potapov; Felix Schoenrath Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2019-01