| Literature DB >> 29689088 |
Petr Ostadal1, Mikulas Mlcek2, Holger Gorhan3, Ivo Simundic3, Svitlana Strunina4, Matej Hrachovina2, Andreas Krüger1, Dagmar Vondrakova1, Marek Janotka1, Pavel Hala1, Martin Mates1, Martin Ostadal5, James C Leiter6, Otomar Kittnar2, Petr Neuzil1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly being used to treat rapidly progressing or severe cardiogenic shock. However, it has been repeatedly shown that increased afterload associated with ECLS significantly diminishes left ventricular (LV) performance. The objective of the present study was to compare LV function and coronary flow during standard continuous-flow ECLS support and electrocardiogram (ECG)-synchronized pulsatile ECLS flow in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29689088 PMCID: PMC5915277 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196321
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Pressure-volume loop analysis.
LV, left ventricle; SBP, systolic blood pressure; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEDP, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure.
Major hemodynamic variables at baseline and after the development of cardiogenic shock.
| CO (L/min) | SBP (mmHg) | MAP (mmHg) | HR (beats/min) | LVEF (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 6.6±1.1 | 115.7±8.2 | 90.5 ±3.9 | 78.4 ±4.0 | 61.2 ±4.3 |
| Cardiogenic shock | 1.7±0.7 | 63.5 ±22.2 | 33.8±10.9 | 105.5±2.5 | 21.9±6.7 |
CO, cardiac output; HR, heart rate; MAP, mean arterial pressure; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; SBP, systolic blood pressure
Fig 2Comparison of the effect of different levels of continuous (C) and synchronized pulsatile (P) extracorporeal blood flow (EBF) on left ventricular performance parameters in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock.
(A) LVESV, left ventricle end-systolic volume; (B) LVSV, left ventricle stroke volume; (C) LVEF, left ventricle ejection fraction; (D) CO, cardiac output. *P<0.05.
Fig 3Comparison of the effect of different levels of continuous (C) and synchronized pulsatile (P) extracorporeal blood flow (EBF) on hemodynamic and left ventricular performance parameters in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock.
(A) MAP, mean arterial pressure; (B) SBP, systolic blood pressure; (C) LVEDP, left ventricle end-diastolic pressure; (D) LVEDV, left ventricle end-diastolic volume. *P<0.05.
Fig 4Comparison of the effect of different levels of continuous (C) and electrocardiogram-synchronized pulsatile (P) extracorporeal blood flow (EBF) on coronary blood flow measured using an intracoronary Doppler wire in a porcine model of cardiogenic shock.
*P<0.05.