Artificial organs · 2021
Initial experience with CytoSorb therapy in patients receiving left ventricular assist devices.
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.
Zhigalov Konstantin, Van den Eynde Jef, Zubarevich Alina, Chrosch Thomas, Goerdt Lukas, Arjomandi Rad Arian, Vardanyan Robert, Sá Michel Pompeu Barros Oliveira, Luedike Peter, Pizanis Nikolaus, Koch Achim, Schmack Bastian, Kamler Markus, Ruhparwar Arjang, Weymann Alexander
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) in patients with advance heart failure is still associated with an important risk of immune dysregulation and infections. The aim of this study was to determine whether extracorporeal blood purification using the CytoSorb device benefits patients after LVAD implantation in terms of complications and overall survival.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2010 and January 2020, 207 consecutive patients underwent LVAD implantation, of whom 72 underwent CytoSorb therapy and 135 did not. Overall survival, major adverse events, and laboratory parameters were compared between 112 propensity score-matched patients (CytoSorb: 72 patients; non-CytoSorb: 40 patients).
RESULTS: WBC (p = .033), CRP (p = .001), and IL-6 (p < .001), significantly increased with LVAD implantation, while CytoSorb did not influence this response. In-hospital mortality and overall survival during follow-up were similar with CytoSorb. However, patients treated with CytoSorb were more likely to develop respiratory failure (54.2% vs. 30.0%, p = .024), need mechanical ventilation for longer than 6 days post-implant (50.0% vs. 27.5%, p = .035), and require tracheostomy during hospitalization (31.9% vs. 12.5%, p = .040). No other significant differences were observed with regard to major adverse events during follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results showed that CytoSorb might not convey a significant morbidity or mortality benefit for patients undergoing LVAD implantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2010 and January 2020, 207 consecutive patients underwent LVAD implantation, of whom 72 underwent CytoSorb therapy and 135 did not. Overall survival, major adverse events, and laboratory parameters were compared between 112 propensity score-matched patients (CytoSorb: 72 patients; non-CytoSorb: 40 patients).
RESULTS: WBC (p = .033), CRP (p = .001), and IL-6 (p < .001), significantly increased with LVAD implantation, while CytoSorb did not influence this response. In-hospital mortality and overall survival during follow-up were similar with CytoSorb. However, patients treated with CytoSorb were more likely to develop respiratory failure (54.2% vs. 30.0%, p = .024), need mechanical ventilation for longer than 6 days post-implant (50.0% vs. 27.5%, p = .035), and require tracheostomy during hospitalization (31.9% vs. 12.5%, p = .040). No other significant differences were observed with regard to major adverse events during follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results showed that CytoSorb might not convey a significant morbidity or mortality benefit for patients undergoing LVAD implantation.