Perfusion · 2024
Left ventricular unloading in patients supported with veno-arterial extra corporeal membrane oxygenation; an international EuroELSO survey.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Ezad Saad M, Ryan Matthew, Barrett Nicholas, Camporota Luigi, Swol Justyna, Antonini Marta V, Donker Dirk W, Pappalardo Federico, Kapur Navin K, Rose Louise, Perera Divaka
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) improves end-organ perfusion in cardiogenic shock but may increase afterload, which can limit cardiac recovery. Left ventricular (LV) unloading strategies may aid cardiac recovery and prevent complications of increased afterload. However, there is no consensus on when and which unloading strategy should be used.
METHODS: An online survey was distributed worldwide via the EuroELSO newsletter mailing list to describe contemporary international practice and evaluate heterogeneity in strategies for LV unloading.
RESULTS: Of 192 respondents from 43 countries, 53% routinely use mechanical LV unloading, to promote ventricular recovery and/or to prevent complications. Of those that do not routinely unload, 65% cited risk of complications as the reason. The most common indications for unplanned unloading were reduced arterial line pulsatility (68%), pulmonary edema (64%) and LV dilatation (50%). An intra-aortic balloon pump was the most frequently used device for unloading followed by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices. Echocardiography was the most frequently used method to monitor the response to unloading.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists with respect to international practice of ventricular unloading. Further research is required that compares the efficacy of different unloading strategies and a randomized comparison of routine mechanical unloading versus unplanned unloading.
METHODS: An online survey was distributed worldwide via the EuroELSO newsletter mailing list to describe contemporary international practice and evaluate heterogeneity in strategies for LV unloading.
RESULTS: Of 192 respondents from 43 countries, 53% routinely use mechanical LV unloading, to promote ventricular recovery and/or to prevent complications. Of those that do not routinely unload, 65% cited risk of complications as the reason. The most common indications for unplanned unloading were reduced arterial line pulsatility (68%), pulmonary edema (64%) and LV dilatation (50%). An intra-aortic balloon pump was the most frequently used device for unloading followed by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices. Echocardiography was the most frequently used method to monitor the response to unloading.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists with respect to international practice of ventricular unloading. Further research is required that compares the efficacy of different unloading strategies and a randomized comparison of routine mechanical unloading versus unplanned unloading.