Journal of cardiac surgery · 2020
Outcomes with temporary mechanical circulatory support before minimally invasive centrifugal left ventricular assist device.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Sorensen Erik N, Griffith Bartley P, Feller Erika D, Kaczorowski David J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite improved survival and morbidity after durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD), outcomes for cardiogenic shock patients are suboptimal. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) can permit optimization before dLVAD. Excellent outcomes have been observed using minimally-invasive dLVAD implantation. However, some feel tMCS contraindicates this approach. To evaluate whether left thoracotomy/hemisternotomy (LTHS) dLVAD placement is safe in this setting, we compared patients who did and did not require tMCS.
METHODS: Outcomes for patients receiving dLVADs via LTHS were compared among those bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or no tMCS. We evaluated demographics, comorbidities, laboratory and hemodynamic data, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent LTHS dLVAD placement. Fifty did not require tMCS, while 22 (26%) required IABP, and 11 (13%) ECMO. Non-tMCS patients were primarily Intermacs 3 (56%), while IABP recipients were mainly Intermacs 2 (45%). All patients with ECMO were Intermacs 1. Patients with tMCS had worse end-organ function. Operative outcomes were similar except more concomitant procedures and red-cell transfusions in patients with ECMO. Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and inotrope duration were also similar. There were no differences in bleeding, stroke, and infection rates. Three- and 12-month survival were: no tMCS: 94%, 86%; IABP: 100%, 88%; and ECMO: 81%, 81% (P = .45).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cardiogenic shock can safely undergo LTHS dLVAD implantation after stabilization with ECMO or IABP. Outcomes and complications in these patients were comparable to a less severely ill cohort without tMCS.
METHODS: Outcomes for patients receiving dLVADs via LTHS were compared among those bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or no tMCS. We evaluated demographics, comorbidities, laboratory and hemodynamic data, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: Eighty-three patients underwent LTHS dLVAD placement. Fifty did not require tMCS, while 22 (26%) required IABP, and 11 (13%) ECMO. Non-tMCS patients were primarily Intermacs 3 (56%), while IABP recipients were mainly Intermacs 2 (45%). All patients with ECMO were Intermacs 1. Patients with tMCS had worse end-organ function. Operative outcomes were similar except more concomitant procedures and red-cell transfusions in patients with ECMO. Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay and inotrope duration were also similar. There were no differences in bleeding, stroke, and infection rates. Three- and 12-month survival were: no tMCS: 94%, 86%; IABP: 100%, 88%; and ECMO: 81%, 81% (P = .45).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cardiogenic shock can safely undergo LTHS dLVAD implantation after stabilization with ECMO or IABP. Outcomes and complications in these patients were comparable to a less severely ill cohort without tMCS.