Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

29 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Impella as Bridge to Surgery Through Imaging for Cardiogenic Shock

ABSTRACT: Graphical abstract Three-dimensional TEE, zoomed volume acquisition, oriented to the surgeon's view of the mitral valve. (A) The left atrial erspective demonstrates a flail A3 segment with a ruptured posteromedial papillary muscle (arrow). (B) Three-dimensional color Doppler demonstrates severe MR. (C, D) Three-dimensional transillumination; left atrial (left) and LV (right) perspective demonstrated. This technique was used to highlight the blood pool–tissue interface. The degree of transparency was adjusted to maximize the border definition between the ruptured posteromedial papillary muscle and blood pool and more clearly demonstrate the ruptured posteromedial papillary muscle (dashed arrow). Highlights Echocardiography during VA-ECMO may identify the need for early LV unloading. Features to monitor include reduced aortic valve opening and aortic root stasis. Findings may guide LV unloading strategies and more effective hemodynamic support. This approach would be useful in MCS for cardiogenic shock due to acute severe MR.

SUBMITTER: Anastasius M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9271425 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Cardiogenic Shock Patients under Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.

2024-10-15 | GSE182609 | GEO

IMPELLA® or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock.

Project description:Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation.

| S-EPMC7918655 | biostudies-literature

DNA Methylation of Cardiogenic Shock Patients under Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Project description:Prognosis for cardiogenic shock patients under ECMO was our study goal. Success defined as survived more than 7 days after ECMO installation and failure died or had multiple organ failure in 7 days. Total 34 cases were enrolled, 17 success and 17 failure. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected at ECMO installation 0, 2 hours and removal were analyzed.

2024-10-15 | GSE182608 | GEO

Gene Expression of Cardiogenic Shock Patients under Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

2024-10-15 | GSE182600 | GEO

Molecular Prognosis of Cardiogenic Shock Patients under Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

2019-12-31 | GSE93101 | GEO

Cardiogenic Shock Patients under Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Project description:Cardiogenic Shock Patients under Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

| PRJNA757005 | ENA

Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Bridge to Replacement Therapies in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been increasing use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as bridge to heart transplant (orthotopic heart transplant [OHT]) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) over the last decade. We aimed to provide insights on the population, outcomes, and predictors for the selection of each therapy.MethodsUsing the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry between 2010 and 2019, we compared in-hospital mortality and length of stay, predictors of OHT versus LVAD, and predictors of in-hospital mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock that were bridged with ECMO to OHT or LVAD. One hundred sixty-seven patients underwent LVAD versus 234 patients who underwent OHT.ResultsThe overall use of ECMO has increased from 1.7% in 2010 to 22.2% in 2019. Mortality was similar between groups (LVAD: 28.7% versus OHT: 29.1%) while length of stay was longer for OHT (LVAD: 49.6 versus OHT: 59.5 days, P=0.05). Factors associated with OHT included prior transplant (odds ratio [OR]=31.26 [CI, 3.84-780.5]), use of a temporary pacemaker (OR=6.5 [CI, 1.39-50.15]), and increased use of inotropes on ECMO (OR=3.77 [CI, 1.39-11.07]), whereas LVAD use was associated with weight (OR=0.98 [CI, 0.97-0.99]), cardiogenic shock presentation (OR=0.40 [CI, 0.21-0.78]), previous LVAD (OR=0.01 [CI, 0.0001-0.22]), respiratory failure (OR=0.28 [CI, 0.11-0.70]), and milrinone infusion (OR=0.32 [CI, 0.15-0.67]). Older age (OR=1.07 [CI, 1.02-1.12]), cannulation bleeding (OR=26.1 [CI, 4.32-221.3]), and surgical bleeding (OR=6.7 [CI, 1.26-39.9]) in patients receiving LVAD and respiratory failure (OR=5 [CI, 1.17-23.1]) and continuous renal replacement therapy (OR=3.82 [CI, 1.28-11.9]) in patients receiving OHT were associated with increased mortality.ConclusionsECMO use as a bridge to advanced therapies has increased over time, with more patients undergoing LVAD than OHT. Mortality was equal between the 2 groups while length of stay was longer for OHT.

| S-EPMC8763251 | biostudies-literature

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

Project description:Mortality in infarct-related cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high, reaching 40-50%. In refractory CS, active mechanical circulatory support devices including veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) are rapidly evolving. However, supporting evidence of VA-ECMO therapy in infarct-related CS is low. The current review aims to give an overview on the basics of VA-ECMO therapy, current evidence, ongoing trials, patient selection and potential complications.

| S-EPMC8910965 | biostudies-literature

Impella versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite an increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), there is currently no randomised data directly comparing the use of Impella and veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).MethodsElectronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched in November 2021. Studies directly comparing the use of Impella (CP, 2.5 or 5.0) with VA-ECMO for AMI-CS were included. Studies examining other modalities of MCS, or other causes of cardiogenic shock, were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.ResultsNo randomised trials comparing VA-ECMO to Impella in patients with AMI-CS were identified. Six cohort studies (five retrospective and one prospective) were included for systematic review. All studies, including 7093 patients, were included in meta-analysis. Five studies reported in-hospital mortality, which, when pooled, was 42.4% in the Impella group versus 50.1% in the VA-ECMO group. Impella support for AMI-CS was associated with an 11% relative risk reduction in in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96, I2 0%). Of the six studies, three studies also adjusted outcome measures via propensity-score matching with reported reductions in in-hospital mortality with Impella compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.86, I2 35%). Pooled analysis of five studies with 6- or 12-month mortality data reported a 14% risk reduction with Impella over the medium-to-long-term (risk ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.97, I2 0%).ConclusionsThere is no high-level evidence comparing VA-ECMO and Impella in AMI-CS. In available observation studies, MCS with Impella was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital and medium-term mortality as compared to VA-ECMO.

| S-EPMC9317942 | biostudies-literature

The Physiologic Basis and Clinical Outcomes of Combined Impella and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in Cardiogenic Shock.

Project description:Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides effective hemodynamic support in cardiogenic shock, but in some cases may be complicated by left ventricular (LV) distension and pulmonary edema. The Impella, a catheter-mounted microaxial pump has been used to unload the LV. Recent studies have compared the clinical outcomes of VA-ECMO to the combination of Impella and VA-ECMO. The purpose of this review is threefold: firstly, to discuss the physiological effects of Impella support in addition to VA-ECMO, secondly to review published studies on the outcome of this combined support, and thirdly to provide a practical overview of the approach to combining Impella and VA-ECMO.

| S-EPMC7584716 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data