Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2013
Emergency and prophylactic use of miniaturized veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Husser Oliver, Holzamer Andreas, Philipp Alois, Nunez Julio, Bodi Vicente, Müller Thomas, Lubnow Matthias, Luchner Andreas, Lunz Dirk, Riegger Günter A J, Schmid Christof, Hengstenberg Christian, Hilker Michael
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To report our center's experience using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vaECMO) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
BACKGROUND: In TAVI, short-term mortality closely relates to life threatening procedural complications. VaECMO can be used to stabilize the patient in emergency situations. However, for the prophylactic use of vaECMO in very high-risk patients undergoing TAVI there is no experience.
METHODS: From January 2009 to August 2011, we performed 131 TAVI. Emergency vaECMO was required in 8 cases (7%): ventricular perforation (n = 3), hemodynamic instability/cardiogenic shock (n = 4), hemodynamic deterioration due to ventricular tachycardia (n = 1). Since August 2011, during 83 procedures, prophylactic vaECMO was systematically used in very high-risk patients (n = 9, 11%) and emergency ECMO in one case (1%) due to ventricular perforation.
RESULTS: Median logistic EuroScore in prophylactic vaECMO patients was considerably higher as compared to the remaining TAVI population (30% vs. 15%, P = 0.0003) while in patients with emergency vaECMO it was comparable (18% vs. 15%, P = 0.08). Comparing prophylactic to emergency vaECMO, procedural success and 30-day mortality were 100% vs. 44% (P = 0.03) and 0% vs. 44% (P = 0.02), respectively. Major vascular complications and rate of life threatening bleeding did not differ between both groups (11% vs. 11%, P = 0.99 and 11% vs. 33%, P = 0.3) and were not vaECMO-related.
CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening complications during TAVI can be managed using emergency vaECMO but mortality remains high. The use of prophylactic vaECMO in very high-risk patients is safe and may be advocated in selected cases.
BACKGROUND: In TAVI, short-term mortality closely relates to life threatening procedural complications. VaECMO can be used to stabilize the patient in emergency situations. However, for the prophylactic use of vaECMO in very high-risk patients undergoing TAVI there is no experience.
METHODS: From January 2009 to August 2011, we performed 131 TAVI. Emergency vaECMO was required in 8 cases (7%): ventricular perforation (n = 3), hemodynamic instability/cardiogenic shock (n = 4), hemodynamic deterioration due to ventricular tachycardia (n = 1). Since August 2011, during 83 procedures, prophylactic vaECMO was systematically used in very high-risk patients (n = 9, 11%) and emergency ECMO in one case (1%) due to ventricular perforation.
RESULTS: Median logistic EuroScore in prophylactic vaECMO patients was considerably higher as compared to the remaining TAVI population (30% vs. 15%, P = 0.0003) while in patients with emergency vaECMO it was comparable (18% vs. 15%, P = 0.08). Comparing prophylactic to emergency vaECMO, procedural success and 30-day mortality were 100% vs. 44% (P = 0.03) and 0% vs. 44% (P = 0.02), respectively. Major vascular complications and rate of life threatening bleeding did not differ between both groups (11% vs. 11%, P = 0.99 and 11% vs. 33%, P = 0.3) and were not vaECMO-related.
CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening complications during TAVI can be managed using emergency vaECMO but mortality remains high. The use of prophylactic vaECMO in very high-risk patients is safe and may be advocated in selected cases.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAged, 80 and overAortic ValveAortic Valve InsufficiencyAortic Valve StenosisCalcinosisCardiac CatheterizationChi-Square DistributionEmergenciesEquipment DesignExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHemodynamicsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiniaturizationProsthesis FailureRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome