Current heart failure reports · 2020
Temporary Circulatory Support With Ventricular Assist Devices: Update on Surgical and Percutaneous Strategies.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Gongora Enrique, Orozco Erik, Hoopes Charles
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The available platforms for temporary circulatory support (TCS) have expanded to include impeller technologies in addition to the traditional approaches with centrifugal pumps and intra-aortic counterpulsation. We review the evidence for competing technologies, relative risk, and benefit of individual TCS platforms and provide a consensus opinion in the context of our institutional experience.
RECENT FINDINGS: Trans-aortic axial flow devices (Impella) have significantly impacted the support of patients with cardiogenic shock. Despite the absence of prospective randomized data, the use of both percutaneous and surgical Impella devices is ubiquitous among heart failure centers and rapidly evolving. Extracorporeal centrifugal pumps remain the technology of last resort. Despite the increasing use of new TCS platforms, there is little empirical evidence that outcomes have been impacted. Increasingly, systems of care-rather than technology-are seen as the more important variable in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock.
RECENT FINDINGS: Trans-aortic axial flow devices (Impella) have significantly impacted the support of patients with cardiogenic shock. Despite the absence of prospective randomized data, the use of both percutaneous and surgical Impella devices is ubiquitous among heart failure centers and rapidly evolving. Extracorporeal centrifugal pumps remain the technology of last resort. Despite the increasing use of new TCS platforms, there is little empirical evidence that outcomes have been impacted. Increasingly, systems of care-rather than technology-are seen as the more important variable in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock.