Heart & lung : the journal of critical care · 2026
Ambulatory femoral versus axillary intra-aortic balloon pump support as a bridge to advanced heart failure therapies: Insights from a single-center experience.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Allaham Haytham, Wells Chris, Srivastava Mukta, Aalaei-Andabili Seyed Hossein, Kwiatkowski Sara, Pu Alex, Rietschel Stephen, Hoyt Mary, Ade Macarena Carrillo, Bennett Samuel, Alswayed Khalid, Cong Olivia, Soares Cullen, Gupta Anuj, Ramani Gautam, Chahal Diljon
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ambulatory intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support is increasingly used to preserve mobility in patients with advanced heart failure awaiting heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device therapy. Axillary IABP facilitates ambulation but is associated with device-related complications. Structured ambulatory femoral IABP protocols have emerged as an alternative; however, direct comparisons of clinical and functional outcomes are lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To compare safety, device-related complications, and functional mobility between ambulatory axillary and ambulatory femoral IABP support.
METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included consecutive patients receiving axillary (2015-2021) or ambulatory femoral (2022-2025) IABP as a bridge to advanced heart failure therapies. Clinical outcomes, vascular and device-related complications, and 30-day events were abstracted from electronic medical records. Functional mobility was assessed using standardized physical therapy evaluations and session-level ambulation metrics.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included (22 axillary, 19 femoral). In-hospital mortality (0% vs 5.6%; p = 0.459) and 30-day mortality (0% vs 5.6%; p = 0.467) were similar. Rates of major bleeding, vascular complications, hematoma, and bacteremia did not differ. Device failure patterns were comparable, including balloon migration (15.0% vs 21.1%; p = 0.685), catheter kink (9.1% vs 5.3%; p = 1.000), and balloon rupture (0% in both groups). Persistent alarms from suboptimal augmentation were more frequent with axillary IABP (59.1% vs 21.1%; p = 0.025). Mean ambulation distances were similar (421.2 ± 318.4 ft vs 374.5 ± 304.9 ft; p = 0.63), with comparable standardized mobility scores.
CONCLUSION: Ambulatory femoral and axillary IABP strategies may provide similar safety profiles and enable functional mobility in carefully selected patients bridged to advanced heart failure therapies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare safety, device-related complications, and functional mobility between ambulatory axillary and ambulatory femoral IABP support.
METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included consecutive patients receiving axillary (2015-2021) or ambulatory femoral (2022-2025) IABP as a bridge to advanced heart failure therapies. Clinical outcomes, vascular and device-related complications, and 30-day events were abstracted from electronic medical records. Functional mobility was assessed using standardized physical therapy evaluations and session-level ambulation metrics.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included (22 axillary, 19 femoral). In-hospital mortality (0% vs 5.6%; p = 0.459) and 30-day mortality (0% vs 5.6%; p = 0.467) were similar. Rates of major bleeding, vascular complications, hematoma, and bacteremia did not differ. Device failure patterns were comparable, including balloon migration (15.0% vs 21.1%; p = 0.685), catheter kink (9.1% vs 5.3%; p = 1.000), and balloon rupture (0% in both groups). Persistent alarms from suboptimal augmentation were more frequent with axillary IABP (59.1% vs 21.1%; p = 0.025). Mean ambulation distances were similar (421.2 ± 318.4 ft vs 374.5 ± 304.9 ft; p = 0.63), with comparable standardized mobility scores.
CONCLUSION: Ambulatory femoral and axillary IABP strategies may provide similar safety profiles and enable functional mobility in carefully selected patients bridged to advanced heart failure therapies.