Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024
Discussion of hemodynamic optimization strategies and the canonical understanding of hemodynamics during biventricular mechanical support in cardiogenic shock: does the flow balance make the difference?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Patsalis Nikolaos, Kreutz Julian, Chatzis Giorgos, Fichera Carlo-Federico, Syntila Styliani, Choukeir Maryana, Griewing Sebastian, Schieffer Bernhard, Markus Birgit
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may stabilize patients with severe cardiogenic shock (CS) following myocardial infarction (MI). However, the canonical understanding of hemodynamics related to the determination of the native cardiac output (CO) does not explain or support the understanding of combined left and right MCS. To ensure the most optimal therapy control, the current principles of hemodynamic measurements during biventricular support should be re-evaluated.
METHODS: Here we report a protocol of hemodynamic optimization strategy during biventricular MCS (VA-ECMO and left ventricular Impella) in a case series of 10 consecutive patients with severe cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. During the protocol, the flow rates of both devices were switched in opposing directions (+ / - 0.7 l/min) for specified times. To address the limitations of existing hemodynamic measurement strategies during biventricular support, different measurement techniques (thermodilution, Fick principle, mixed venous oxygen saturation) were performed by pulmonary artery catheterization. Additionally, Doppler ultrasound was performed to determine the renal resistive index (RRI) as an indicator of renal perfusion.
RESULTS: The comparison between condition 1 (ECMO flow > Impella flow) and condition 2 (Impella flow > VA-ECMO flow) revealed significant changes in hemodynamics. In detail, compared to condition 1, condition 2 results in a significant increase in cardiac output (3.86 ± 1.11 vs. 5.44 ± 1.13 l/min, p = 0.005) and cardiac index (2.04 ± 0.64 vs. 2.85 ± 0.69, p = 0.013), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (56.44 ± 6.97% vs. 62.02 ± 5.64% p = 0.049), whereas systemic vascular resistance decreased from 1618 ± 337 to 1086 ± 306 s*cm-5 (p = 0.002). Similarly, RRI decreased in condition 2 (0.662 ± 0.05 vs. 0.578 ± 0.06, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: To monitor and optimize MCS in CS, PA catheterization for hemodynamic measurement is applicable. Higher Impella flow is superior to higher VA-ECMO flow resulting in a more profound increase in CO with subsequent improvement of organ perfusion.
METHODS: Here we report a protocol of hemodynamic optimization strategy during biventricular MCS (VA-ECMO and left ventricular Impella) in a case series of 10 consecutive patients with severe cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. During the protocol, the flow rates of both devices were switched in opposing directions (+ / - 0.7 l/min) for specified times. To address the limitations of existing hemodynamic measurement strategies during biventricular support, different measurement techniques (thermodilution, Fick principle, mixed venous oxygen saturation) were performed by pulmonary artery catheterization. Additionally, Doppler ultrasound was performed to determine the renal resistive index (RRI) as an indicator of renal perfusion.
RESULTS: The comparison between condition 1 (ECMO flow > Impella flow) and condition 2 (Impella flow > VA-ECMO flow) revealed significant changes in hemodynamics. In detail, compared to condition 1, condition 2 results in a significant increase in cardiac output (3.86 ± 1.11 vs. 5.44 ± 1.13 l/min, p = 0.005) and cardiac index (2.04 ± 0.64 vs. 2.85 ± 0.69, p = 0.013), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (56.44 ± 6.97% vs. 62.02 ± 5.64% p = 0.049), whereas systemic vascular resistance decreased from 1618 ± 337 to 1086 ± 306 s*cm-5 (p = 0.002). Similarly, RRI decreased in condition 2 (0.662 ± 0.05 vs. 0.578 ± 0.06, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: To monitor and optimize MCS in CS, PA catheterization for hemodynamic measurement is applicable. Higher Impella flow is superior to higher VA-ECMO flow resulting in a more profound increase in CO with subsequent improvement of organ perfusion.