Artificial organs · 2023
Evolution of concomitant use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support with Impella in cardiogenic shock: From percutaneous femoral Impella to axillary Impella 5.5.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Isath Ameesh, Ohira Suguru, Levine Avi, Lanier Gregg M, Pan Stephen, Aggarwal-Gupta Chhaya, Mason Ian, Gregory Vasiliki, Spielvogel David, Gass Alan L, Kai Masashi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Little is known about safety and efficacy of the use of Impella 5.5 compared to previous iterations in the setting of Impella with Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support as ECPELLA.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who were treated by ECPELLA with surgically implanted axillary Impella 5.5 (N = 13) were compared with patients supported by ECPELLA with percutaneous femoral Impella CP or 2.5 (Control, N = 13).
RESULTS: The total ECPELLA flow was higher in ECPELLA 5.5 group (6.9 vs. 5.4 L/min, p = 0.019). Actual hospital survival was higher than predicted and comparable in both groups (ECPELLA 5.5, 61.5% vs. Control, 53.8%, p = 0.691). Both total device complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 7.7% vs. Control, 46.1%, p = 0.021) and Impella-specific complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 0% vs. Control, 30.8%, p = 0.012) were significantly lower in the ECPELLA 5.5 group.
CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of Impella 5.5 in the setting of ECPELLA provides greater hemodynamic support with a lower risk of complications compared to Impella CP or 2.5.
METHODS: Consecutive patients who were treated by ECPELLA with surgically implanted axillary Impella 5.5 (N = 13) were compared with patients supported by ECPELLA with percutaneous femoral Impella CP or 2.5 (Control, N = 13).
RESULTS: The total ECPELLA flow was higher in ECPELLA 5.5 group (6.9 vs. 5.4 L/min, p = 0.019). Actual hospital survival was higher than predicted and comparable in both groups (ECPELLA 5.5, 61.5% vs. Control, 53.8%, p = 0.691). Both total device complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 7.7% vs. Control, 46.1%, p = 0.021) and Impella-specific complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 0% vs. Control, 30.8%, p = 0.012) were significantly lower in the ECPELLA 5.5 group.
CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of Impella 5.5 in the setting of ECPELLA provides greater hemodynamic support with a lower risk of complications compared to Impella CP or 2.5.