Ablation of atrial arrhythmias in patients with cardiogenic shock on mechanical circulatory support.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mantini N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6404096 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Cardiogenic shock complicates about 5% to 8% of all admissions for acute myocardial infarction, and despite advancement in treatment over the past 50 years, mortality remains unacceptably high. Management with vasoactive agents after revascularization can have its limitations and thus mechanical circulatory support is often initiated. Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) are the devices most commonly used worldwide. IABPs appeared to improve mortality when used along with fibrinolytic therapy but may not when used along with percutaneous coronary interventions. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is utilized in the setting of worsening tissue perfusion despite inotropes and IABP utilization. Although retrospective studies show some mortality benefit, randomized prospective studies have not yet demonstrated ECMO to be advantageous either with or without IABP. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices such as TandemHeart® and Impella are easier to institute than ECMO and are better for hemodynamics compared with the IABP but also have not yet shown a mortality benefit. More randomized studies are needed to define the most appropriate role of the various mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock.
| S-EPMC4191250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.
| S-EPMC5640487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early use of mechanical circulatory support, e.g. veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or left ventricular unloading by microaxial pump in refractory cardiogenic shock is recommended in current guidelines. Development of acquired von Willebrand Syndrome (AVWS) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and ECMO has been reported. There is an increasing number of patients treated with the Impella® CP microaxial pump for left ventricular unloading. However, the prevalence of AVWS in these high risk patients is unknown and needs to be determined. We therefore screened 21 patients (68 ± 11years) treated with Impella® (17 for cardiogenic shock, 4 for protected PCI) for the presence of AVWS by determining von Willebrand factor multimers, VWF collagen binding capacity and VWF antigen. During the time course of Impella® support, 20/21 patients (95%) developed AVWS (mean duration of support: 135 ± 114 hours, mean time from device implantation to first diagnosis of AVWS: 10.6 ± 10.8 hours). Our data indicate that AVWS is a common phenomenon during left ventricular unloading via microaxial pump support. Thus, AVWS has to be considered as contributing factor for potential bleeding complications in this high risk patient population, especially in the context of dual antiplatelet therapy.
| S-EPMC5555672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the study was to compare the renal outcomes in patients presenting with all-cause cardiogenic shock who were supported by either Impella devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or vasopressors alone. Outcomes of cardiogenic shock remain poor even with the advancement of early revascularization and circulatory supportive care. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device has emerged as an effective strategy in protecting end organ function especially renal function during high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in patients with cardiogenic shock. Currently, comparative data amongst various MCS modalities and their association with improvement of renal function in cardiogenic shock patients have not been well characterized.MethodsData from New Jersey Cardiac Catheterization Data registry of cardiogenic shock patients from a single tertiary care institution that underwent cardiac catheterization and the modality used to treat were obtained, either with Impella devices, IABP, or treatment with vasopressors alone. Retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) on patients with cardiogenic shock prior to and after cardiac catheterization and renal function was evaluated over the course of 96 h after cardiac catheterization. Statistical analysis was performed to ascertain significant difference in creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients who received Impella devices, IABP, or were treated with vasopressors alone.ResultsA total of 61 all-cause cardiogenic shock patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study with 19 receiving IABPs, 15 receiving Impella devices, and 27 treated with vasopressors alone. Baseline characteristics among these three groups did not show any statistically significant difference. A total of 29 cardiogenic shock patients had experienced AKI prior to cardiac catheterization in which those receiving Impella devices showed statistically significant decrease in creatinine and increase in eGFR at 72 and 96 h (P < 0.05) compared to baseline. Within the same cohort, Impella group showed statistically significant lower creatinine at 96 h when compared to IABP. Patients that experienced AKI after cardiac catheterization did not show any statistically significant changes in renal function regardless of modality used.ConclusionThe results of our study suggest that Impella devices improve renal function in all-cause cardiogenic shock patients who experience AKI prior to undergoing cardiac catheterization.
| S-EPMC8166292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is scarce evidence for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with influenza-related myocarditis complicated by refractory cardiogenic shock (rCS). We sought to investigate the impact of MCS using combined veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and micro-axial flow pumps (the ECMELLA concept) in influenza-related myocarditis complicated by rCS. METHODS:This is a prospective, observational analysis from the single centre HAnnover Cardiac Unloading REgistry (HACURE) from two recent epidemic influenza seasons. We analysed patients with verified influenza-associated myocarditis complicated by rCS who were admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) on MCS. Subsequently, we performed a propensity score (PS) matched analysis to patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by rCS and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (DCM) related rCS. RESULTS:We describe a series of seven patients with rCS-complicated influenza-related myocarditis (mean age 56±10?years, 58% male, influenza A (n=2)/influenza B (n=5)). No patient had been vaccinated prior to the influenza season. MCS was provided using combined VA-ECMO and Impella micro-axial flow pump. In two patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, VA-ECMO had been implanted for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. All patients died within 18?days of hospital admission. By PS-based comparison to patients with AMI- or DCM-related rCS and combined MCS, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in influenza-related rCS. CONCLUSION:Despite initial stabilisation with combined MCS in patients with rCS-complicated influenza-related myocarditis, the detrimental course of shock could not be stopped and all patients died. Influenza virus infection potentially critically affects other organs besides the heart, leading to irreversible end-organ damage that MCS cannot compensate for and, therefore, results in a devastating outcome.
| S-EPMC7469974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Temporary mechanical circulatory support is a treatment of choice for patients in severe cardiogenic shock. Combining veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with devices that enable left ventricular unloading emerges as a promising strategy to diminish detrimental effect of elevated left ventricular afterload and to improve survival. However, the need to establish multiple arterial access sites remains a major drawback of this approach due to a significant rate of vascular complications. We describe herein a case of a single arterial access for ECLS and intra-aortic balloon pump using axillary artery that may provide a simple, modular and flexible approach for escalation or de-escalation of mechanical circulatory support.
| S-EPMC10837988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives:To describe the contemporary trends in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). To evaluate survival benefit with early application of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella CP. Methods:A cohort study of all consecutive patients with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) <24?hours of symptom onset (early PCI) in southeastern Denmark from 2010 to 2017. A matched case-control study comparing 30-day mortality between patients receiving early-IABP or early-Impella CP and their respective control group. Controls were matched on age, left ventricular ejection fraction, arterial lactate, estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac arrest before PCI. Early-IABP/Impella CP was defined as applied before PCI if shock developed pre-PCI, or immediately after PCI if shock developed during PCI. Results:903 patients with AMICS undergoing early PCI were identified. Use of MCS decreased from 50% in 2010 to 25% in 2017, p for trend of <0.001. The IABP was abandoned in 2012 and replaced mostly by Impella CP. Patients receiving MCS in 2013-2017 had more compromised haemodynamics compared with patients receiving MCS in 2010-2012. 40 patients received early IABP, and 40 patients received early Impella CP. Only the group receiving early Impella CP was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with their matched control group (30-day mortality 40% vs 77.5%, plog-rank of<0.001). Conclusion:Use of MCS decreased by 50% from 2010 to 2017. Patients receiving MCS had more compromised haemodynamics in recent years. Early application of Impella CP was associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with a matched control group.
| S-EPMC7059524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is managed with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in advanced cases. Patients with cancer are at high risk of AMI and CS. However, outcomes of patients with cancer and AMI-CS managed with tMCS have not been rigorously studied.MethodsAdult patients with AMI-CS managed with tMCS from 2006 to 2018 with and without cancer were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for variables associated with cancer. Primary outcome was in-hospital death, and secondary outcomes were major bleeding and thrombotic complications.ResultsAfter PSM, 1287 patients with cancer were matched with 12,870 patients without cancer. There was an increasing temporal trend for prevalence of cancer among patients admitted with AMI-CS managed with tMCS (P trend < .001). After PSM, there was no difference in in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13) or thrombotic complications (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.34) between patients with and without cancer. Patients with cancer had a higher risk of major bleeding (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46).ConclusionsAmong patients with AMI-CS managed with tMCS, cancer is becoming increasingly frequent and associated with increased risk of major bleeding, although there was no difference in in-hospital death. Further studies are needed to further characterize outcomes, and inclusion of patients with cancer in trials of tMCS is needed.
| S-EPMC11307771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit.ObjectiveTo examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020.ExposuresTherapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only.Main outcomes and measuresUse of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use.ResultsAmong the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P < .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use.
| S-EPMC7900859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the critical feature of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) for patients on mechanical circulatory support, reports on its incidence and outcome are still scarce. Thus, we report on clinical features of HIT in patients under Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) (Impella 5+) support for acute cardiogenic shock (CS) by focusing on observed thrombotic events. Between November 2018 and December 2020, a total of 56 consecutive patients were enrolled in a single-center retrospective study. A total of 21 patients (37.5%) were tested for HIT, and 6 (10.7%) proved positive for HIT at 10.5 ± 2.89 days after the first heparin administration during current admission. Interestingly, thrombocyte counts dropped under Impella support in all groups (all cases, no HIT test, and HIT negative group: p < 0.001, HIT-positive group: p = 0.001). All HIT-positive patients were switched from heparin to argatroban. HIT-associated thrombotic events were observed in two cases resulting in Impella dysfunction due to pump thrombosis (n = 1) and left ventricular (LV) thrombus formation (n = 1). Under large Impella support, the prevalence of HIT was relatively high. Further, thrombocytopenia does not deliver a high specificity in the setting of Impella 5+ support. Considering HIT manifestation, a routine HIT test may be considered to avoid critical thrombotic adverse events.
| S-EPMC8709300 | biostudies-literature