Dataset Information

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

ABSTRACT: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can result in complications due to increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are both considered to be effective means of LV unloading. This study describes the efficacy of LV unloading and related outcomes with PVAD or IABP during ECLS. From January 2010 to April 2018, all cardiogenic shock patients who underwent ECLS plus simultaneous PVAD or IABP were analyzed. Forty-nine patients received ECLS + PVAD, while 91 received ECLS + IABP. At 48 hours, mean pulmonary artery pressure was significantly reduced in both groups [34?mm Hg to 22, p < 0.01; 32?mm Hg to 21, p < 0.01; ECLS + PVAD and ECLS + IABP group, respectively]. The two groups had similar 30 day survival rates [19 patients (39%) vs. 35 (39%), p = 0.56]. The ECLS + PVAD group had higher incidences of bleeding at the insertion site [11 (22%) vs. 0, p < 0.01] and major hemolysis [9 (18%) vs. 0, p < 0.01]. Both groups had improvement in LV end-diastolic dimension (61?±?12?mm to 54?±?12, p = 0.03; 60?±?12?mm to 47?±?10, p < 0.01), and LV ejection fraction (16?±?7% to 22?±?10, p < 0.01; 22?±?12% to 29?±?15, p = 0.01). Both ECLS + PVAD and ECLS + IABP effectively reduced pulmonary artery pressure and improved LV function. Bleeding at the PVAD or IABP insertion site occurred more frequently in the ECLS + PVAD group than the ECLS + IABP group (p < 0.01). Nine patients (18%) in the ECLS + PVAD group experienced major hemolysis, while there was no hemolysis in the ECLS + IABP group (p < 0.01). Careful considerations are required before selecting an additional support to ECLS.

SUBMITTER: Nakajima T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7745888 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

Nakajima Tomohiro T Tanaka Yuki Y Fischer Irene I Kotkar Kunal K Damiano Ralph J RJ Moon Marc R MR Masood Muhammad F MF Itoh Akinobu A

ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992) 20210101 1

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can result in complications due to increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are both considered to be effective means of LV unloading. This study describes the efficacy of LV unloading and related outcomes with PVAD or IABP during ECLS. From January 2010 to April 2018, all cardiogenic shock patients who underwent ECLS plus simultaneous PVAD or IABP were analyzed. Forty-nine ...[more]

PMID: 33346989

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsPercutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are used to haemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). One out of every two patients has a non-ischaemic cause of CS, and these patients differ profoundly from patients with AMI-related CS. We assessed the usefulness of pVAD support for patients with non-ischaemic CS.Methods and resultsWe analysed 106 patients with CS and Impella® support between 2015 and 2018. CS was non-ischaemic in 36 patients and AMI-related in 70 patients. Compared with the AMI group, those in the non-ischaemic group were significantly younger [median age 62 (50.8, 70.8) years vs. 68 (58.0, 75.5) years, P = 0.007] and had more patients with severely reduced left ventricular function (94% vs. 79%, P = 0.035) and worse glomerular filtration rate [45 (27, 57) mL/min vs. 60 (44, 78) mL/min]. Propensity score matching yielded 31 patients with non-ischaemic CS and 31 patients with AMI-related CS, without a difference in baseline laboratory values or comorbidities. In both groups, pVAD support was performed along with haemodynamic stabilization, reduction of catecholamines and normalization of lactate levels. In 7 days, systolic blood pressure increased from 91 (80, 101) mmHg at baseline to 100 (100, 120) mmHg in the non-ischaemic CS group (P = 0.001) and 89 (80, 100) mmHg at baseline to 112 (100, 128) mmHg in the AMI-related CS group (P = 0.001). Moreover, in 7 days, the need of catecholamines (calculated as vasoactive-inotropic score) decreased from 32.0 (11.1, 47.0) at baseline to 5.3 (0, 16.1) in the non-ischaemic group (P = 0.001) and from 35.2 (18.11, 67.0) to zero (0, 0) in the AMI-related CS group (P = 0.001). Lactate level decreased from 3.8 (2.8, 5.9) mmol/L at baseline to 1.0 (0.8, 2.1) mmol/L (P = 0.001) in the non-ischaemic CS group and from 3.8 (2.6, 6.5) mmol/L to 1.2 (1.0, 2.0) mmol/L in the AMI-related group (P = 0.001). In the non-ischaemic CS group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or long-term mechanical circulatory support. Two of these upgraded patients received heart transplantation. In the AMI group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to VA-ECMO or long-term mechanical circulatory support. Ninety-day survival did not significantly differ between the groups (non-ischaemic CS group 48.4%, AMI-related CS group 45.2%, P = 0.799).ConclusionspVAD support is useful for haemodynamic stabilization of patients with non-ischaemic CS and is valuable as a bridge to patients' recovery or long-term left ventricular support and heart transplantation.

Project description:ImportanceAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide greater hemodynamic support as compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), little is known about clinical outcomes associated with intravascular microaxial LVAD use in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo examine outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices.Design, setting, and participantsA propensity-matched registry-based retrospective cohort study of patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, who were included in data from hospitals participating in the CathPCI and the Chest Pain-MI registries, both part of the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients receiving an intravascular microaxial LVAD were matched with those receiving IABP on demographics, clinical history, presentation, infarct location, coronary anatomy, and clinical laboratory data, with final follow-up through December 31, 2017.ExposuresHemodynamic support, categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD use only, IABP only, other (such as use of a percutaneous extracorporeal ventricular assist system, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a combination of MCS device use), or medical therapy only.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital major bleeding.ResultsAmong 28 304 patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (12.6) years, 67.0% were men, 81.3% had an ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 43.3% had cardiac arrest. Over the study period among patients with AMI, an intravascular microaxial LVAD was used in 6.2% of patients, and IABP was used in 29.9%. Among 1680 propensity-matched pairs, there was a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death associated with use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage points {95% CI, 7.6-14.2}; P < .001) and also higher risk of in-hospital major bleeding (intravascular microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage points [95% CI, 12.5-18.2]; P < .001). These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients received a device before or after initiation of PCI.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock from 2015 to 2017, use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD compared with IABP was associated with higher adjusted risk of in-hospital death and major bleeding complications, although study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Further research may be needed to understand optimal device choice for these patients.

Dataset Information

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

Publications

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets