The International journal of artificial organs · 2021
Comparison of Impella 5.0 and extracorporeal left ventricular assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock.
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.
Kondo Toru, Morimoto Ryota, Mutsuga Masato, Fujimoto Kazuro, Okumura Takahiro, Shibata Naoki, Kazama Shingo, Kimira Yuki, Oishi Hideo, Kuwayama Tasuku, Hiraiwa Hiroaki, Usui Akihiko, Murohara Toyoaki
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Choice of mechanical circulatory support to stabilize hemodynamics until cardiac recovery or next treatment is a strategic cornerstone for improving outcomes in patients with severe cardiogenic shock. We aimed to clarify the difference in treatment course and outcomes with the use of Impella 5.0 and an extracorporeal left ventricular assist device (eLVAD) in patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to medical therapy or other mechanical circulatory support.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of consecutive patients who were implanted with Impella 5.0 or eLVAD as a bridge to decision at our medical center.
RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (median age 40 years, 16 males) were analyzed. Of seven patients managed with Impella 5.0, the Impella 5.0 was removed successfully in two patients and five patients underwent surgery for durable LVAD implantation. Of 19 patients managed with eLVAD, the eLVAD was successfully removed in 3 patients, 9 patients required durable LVAD, and 7 patients died during eLVAD management. The period between Impella 5.0 or eLVAD implantation to durable LVAD surgery was significantly shorter with Impella 5.0 (58 vs 235 days, p = 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter and a significantly smaller amount of red blood cell transfusion was required with Impella 5.0 (149 vs 192 min, p = 0.042; 7.0 vs 15.0 units, p = 0.019). There were four massive stroke events with eLVAD, but no massive stroke event with Impella 5.0.
CONCLUSION: Impella 5.0 facilitates smoother management as a bridge to decision and reduces surgical invasiveness during durable LVAD implantation.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of consecutive patients who were implanted with Impella 5.0 or eLVAD as a bridge to decision at our medical center.
RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (median age 40 years, 16 males) were analyzed. Of seven patients managed with Impella 5.0, the Impella 5.0 was removed successfully in two patients and five patients underwent surgery for durable LVAD implantation. Of 19 patients managed with eLVAD, the eLVAD was successfully removed in 3 patients, 9 patients required durable LVAD, and 7 patients died during eLVAD management. The period between Impella 5.0 or eLVAD implantation to durable LVAD surgery was significantly shorter with Impella 5.0 (58 vs 235 days, p = 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter and a significantly smaller amount of red blood cell transfusion was required with Impella 5.0 (149 vs 192 min, p = 0.042; 7.0 vs 15.0 units, p = 0.019). There were four massive stroke events with eLVAD, but no massive stroke event with Impella 5.0.
CONCLUSION: Impella 5.0 facilitates smoother management as a bridge to decision and reduces surgical invasiveness during durable LVAD implantation.