1文献来源
O＇Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coro...1文献来源
O＇Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention ： Circulation, 2012,126 The PROTECT Ⅱ study [J] （14） ： 1717-1727.展开更多
BACKGROUND Often in patients with significant three-vessel or left main disease there is coexistent significant peripheral disease rendering them poor candidates for percutaneous left ventricular support during revasc...BACKGROUND Often in patients with significant three-vessel or left main disease there is coexistent significant peripheral disease rendering them poor candidates for percutaneous left ventricular support during revascularization.Evidence on the management of such cases is limited.CASE SUMMARY We describe a case of such a patient with critical distal left main disease and chronically occluded right coronary artery who presented with chest pain and a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and had significantly impaired left ventricular function.With the aid of our cardiothoracic surgeons a cut down subclavian Impella 5.0 was inserted and high risk rotablation percutaneous coronary intervention carried out successfully.CONCLUSION This case highlights the need for cross-specialty collaborations in such high-risk cases were alternative access is needed for insertion of large bore mechanical circulatory support devices.展开更多
BACKGROUND The Impella pump has emerged as a promising tool in patients with cardiogenic shock(CS).Despite its attractive properties,there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting and the potential role of Imp...BACKGROUND The Impella pump has emerged as a promising tool in patients with cardiogenic shock(CS).Despite its attractive properties,there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting and the potential role of Impella devices in CS patients from routine clinical practice.METHODS This is an observational,retrospective,single center,cohort study.All consecutive patients with diagnosis of CS and undergoing support with Impella 2.5?,Impella CP?or Impella 5.0?from April 2015 to December 2020 were included.Baseline characteristics,management and outcomes were assessed according to CS severity,age and cause of CS.Main outcome measured was in-hospital mortality.RESULTS A total of 50 patients were included(median age:59.3±10 years).The most common cause of CS was acute coronary syndrome(ACS)(68%),followed by decompensation of previous cardiomyopathy(22%).A total of 13 patients(26%)had profound CS.Most patients(54%)improved pulmonary congestion at 48 h after Impella support.A total of 19 patients(38%)presented significant bleeding.In-hospital mortality was 42%.Among patients with profound CS(n=13),five patients were previously supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.A total of eight patients(61.5%)died during the admission,and no patient achieved ventricular recovery.Older patients(≥67 years,n=10)had more comorbidities and the highest mortality(70%).Among patients with ACS(n=34),35.3%of patients had profound CS;and in most cases(52.9%),Impella support was performed as a bridge to recovery.In contrast,only one patient from the decompensated cardiomyopathy group(n=11)presented with profound CS.In 90.9%of these cases,Impella support was used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation.There were no cases of death.CONCLUSIONS In this cohort of real-life CS patients,Impella devices were used in different settings,with different clinical profiles and management.Despite a significant rate of complications,mortality was acceptable and lower than those observed in other series.展开更多
The adverse outcomes of a ventricular heart failure(left,right or biventricular)caused by cardiogenic shock are aggravated by lung oedema and organ mal perfusion.Despite advances in medical sciences,revascularisation ...The adverse outcomes of a ventricular heart failure(left,right or biventricular)caused by cardiogenic shock are aggravated by lung oedema and organ mal perfusion.Despite advances in medical sciences,revascularisation and mechanical hemodynamic support have proved ineffective in reducing the mortality rate in such patients.A thorough study of the data available about cardio-vascular diseases reveals that the application of conventional methods of treatment are least helpful to practically restore normal functions of heart when it experiences end-stage systolic ventricular failure.Thus,to overcome the challenges and find alternatives to address this issue,percutaneous ventricular support devices/machines were designed and successfully introduced.These devices have revolutionized the treatment of ventricular heart failures and are now in use all over the world.In this review paper a newer mechanical circulatory support(MCS)device,Impella,has been discussed and compared with a few other devices like(Intra-aortic Balloon Pump(IABP),Extracorporeal Circulation(ECLS)and Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation(VA-ECMO).This article studies the challenges being faced during the treatment of cardiogenic shock,and thoroughly discusses the use and effectiveness of Impella Cardiac Axial Pump in each emergency.It can be said that mechanical circulatory support(MCS)device use during percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)should be individualized based on multiple factors with a recommended use in patients with the greatest potential benefit and a relatively low risk of device-related complications.The current literature suggests that the outcomes of use of Impella and other mechanical circulatory support devices like IABP and VA-ECMO are comparable.Though there seem to be a few advantages of Impella over the others,sufficiently powered,multi-centric,randomised control trials are needed to establish its superiority.展开更多
AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock(CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction(AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We selected all of the studie...AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock(CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction(AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We selected all of the studies published from January 1st, 1997 to May 15 st, 2015 that compared the following percutaneous mechanical support in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing myocardial revascularization:(1) intra-aortic balloon pump(IABP) vs Medical therapy;(2) percutaneous left ventricular assist devices(PLVADs) vs IABP;(3) complete extracorporeal life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(ECMO) plus IABP vs IABP alone; and(4) ECMO plus IABP vs ECMO alone, in patients with AMI and CS undergoing myocardial revascularization. We evaluated the impact of the support devices on primary and secondary endpoints. Primary endpoint was the inhospital mortality due to any cause during the same hospital stay and secondary endpoint late mortality at 6-12 moof follow-up. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and seventytwo studies met the initial screening criteria. After detailed review, only 30 were selected. There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials and 24 eligible observational studies totaling 15799 patients. We found that the inhospital mortality was:(1) significantly higher with IABP support vs medical therapy(RR = +15%, P = 0.0002);(2) was higher, although not significantly, with PLVADs compared to IABP(RR = +14%, P = 0.21); and(3) significantly lower in patients treated with ECMO plus IABP vs IABP(RR =-44%, P = 0.0008) or ECMO(RR =-20%, P = 0.006) alone. In addition, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that in the comparison of IABP vs medical therapy, the sample size was adequate to demonstrate a significant increase in risk due to IABP. CONCLUSION: Inhospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP vs medical therapy. PLVADs did not reduce early mortality. ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced inhospital mortality compared to IABP.展开更多
BACKGROUND Critical care is rapidly evolving with significant innovations to decrease hospital stays and costs.To our knowledge,there is limited data on factors that affect the length of stay and hospital charges in c...BACKGROUND Critical care is rapidly evolving with significant innovations to decrease hospital stays and costs.To our knowledge,there is limited data on factors that affect the length of stay and hospital charges in cirrhotic patients who present with STelevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock(SRCS).AIM To identify the factors that increase inpatient mortality,length of stay,and total hospital charges in patients with liver cirrhosis(LC)compared to those without LC.METHODS This study includes all adults over 18 from the National Inpatient Sample 2017 database.The study consists of two groups of patients,including SRCS with LC and without LC.Inpatient mortality,length of stay,and total hospital charges are the primary outcomes between the two groups.We used STATA 16 to perform statistical analysis.The Pearson's chi-square test compares the categorical variables.Propensity-matched scoring with univariate and multivariate logistic regression generated the odds ratios for inpatient mortality,length of stay,and resource utilization.RESULTS This study includes a total of 35798453 weighted hospitalized patients from the 2017 National Inpatient Sample.The two groups are SRCS without LC(n=758809)and SRCS with LC(n=11920).The majority of patients were Caucasian in both groups(67%vs 72%).The mean number of patients insured with Medicare was lower in the LC group(60%vs 56%)compared to the other group,and those who had at least three or more comorbidities(53%vs 90%)were significantly higher in the LC group compared to the non-LC group.Inpatient mortality was also considerably higher in the LC group(28.7%vs 10.63%).Length of Stay(LOS)is longer in the LC group compared to the non-LC group(9 vs 5.6).Similarly,total hospital charges are higher in patients with LC($147407.80 vs$113069.10,P≤0.05).Inpatient mortality is lower in the early percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)group(OR:0.79<0.11),however,it is not statistically significant.Both early Impella(OR:1.73<0.05)and early extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(ECMO)(OR:3.10 P<0.05)in the LC group were associated with increased mortality.Early PCI(-2.57 P<0.05)and Impella(-3.25 P<0.05)were also both associated with shorter LOS compared to those who did not.Early ECMO does not impact the LOS;however,it does increase total hospital charge(addition of$24717.85,P<0.05).CONCLUSION LC is associated with a significantly increased inpatient mortality,length of stay,and total hospital charges in patients who develop SRCS.Rural and Non-teaching hospitals have significantly increased odds of extended hospital stays and higher adjusted total hospital charges.The Association of LC with worse outcomes outlines the essential need to monitor these patients closely and treat them early on with higher acuity care.Patients with early PCI had both shorter LOS and reduced inpatient mortality,while early Impella was associated with increased mortality and shorter LOS.Early ECMO is associated with increased mortality and higher total hospital charges.This finding should affect the decision to follow through with interventional management in this cohort of patients as it is associated with poor outcomes and immense resource utilization.展开更多
文摘1文献来源
O＇Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention ： Circulation, 2012,126 The PROTECT Ⅱ study [J] （14） ： 1717-1727.
文摘BACKGROUND Often in patients with significant three-vessel or left main disease there is coexistent significant peripheral disease rendering them poor candidates for percutaneous left ventricular support during revascularization.Evidence on the management of such cases is limited.CASE SUMMARY We describe a case of such a patient with critical distal left main disease and chronically occluded right coronary artery who presented with chest pain and a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and had significantly impaired left ventricular function.With the aid of our cardiothoracic surgeons a cut down subclavian Impella 5.0 was inserted and high risk rotablation percutaneous coronary intervention carried out successfully.CONCLUSION This case highlights the need for cross-specialty collaborations in such high-risk cases were alternative access is needed for insertion of large bore mechanical circulatory support devices.
文摘BACKGROUND The Impella pump has emerged as a promising tool in patients with cardiogenic shock(CS).Despite its attractive properties,there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting and the potential role of Impella devices in CS patients from routine clinical practice.METHODS This is an observational,retrospective,single center,cohort study.All consecutive patients with diagnosis of CS and undergoing support with Impella 2.5?,Impella CP?or Impella 5.0?from April 2015 to December 2020 were included.Baseline characteristics,management and outcomes were assessed according to CS severity,age and cause of CS.Main outcome measured was in-hospital mortality.RESULTS A total of 50 patients were included(median age:59.3±10 years).The most common cause of CS was acute coronary syndrome(ACS)(68%),followed by decompensation of previous cardiomyopathy(22%).A total of 13 patients(26%)had profound CS.Most patients(54%)improved pulmonary congestion at 48 h after Impella support.A total of 19 patients(38%)presented significant bleeding.In-hospital mortality was 42%.Among patients with profound CS(n=13),five patients were previously supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.A total of eight patients(61.5%)died during the admission,and no patient achieved ventricular recovery.Older patients(≥67 years,n=10)had more comorbidities and the highest mortality(70%).Among patients with ACS(n=34),35.3%of patients had profound CS;and in most cases(52.9%),Impella support was performed as a bridge to recovery.In contrast,only one patient from the decompensated cardiomyopathy group(n=11)presented with profound CS.In 90.9%of these cases,Impella support was used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation.There were no cases of death.CONCLUSIONS In this cohort of real-life CS patients,Impella devices were used in different settings,with different clinical profiles and management.Despite a significant rate of complications,mortality was acceptable and lower than those observed in other series.
文摘The adverse outcomes of a ventricular heart failure(left,right or biventricular)caused by cardiogenic shock are aggravated by lung oedema and organ mal perfusion.Despite advances in medical sciences,revascularisation and mechanical hemodynamic support have proved ineffective in reducing the mortality rate in such patients.A thorough study of the data available about cardio-vascular diseases reveals that the application of conventional methods of treatment are least helpful to practically restore normal functions of heart when it experiences end-stage systolic ventricular failure.Thus,to overcome the challenges and find alternatives to address this issue,percutaneous ventricular support devices/machines were designed and successfully introduced.These devices have revolutionized the treatment of ventricular heart failures and are now in use all over the world.In this review paper a newer mechanical circulatory support(MCS)device,Impella,has been discussed and compared with a few other devices like(Intra-aortic Balloon Pump(IABP),Extracorporeal Circulation(ECLS)and Veno-arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation(VA-ECMO).This article studies the challenges being faced during the treatment of cardiogenic shock,and thoroughly discusses the use and effectiveness of Impella Cardiac Axial Pump in each emergency.It can be said that mechanical circulatory support(MCS)device use during percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)should be individualized based on multiple factors with a recommended use in patients with the greatest potential benefit and a relatively low risk of device-related complications.The current literature suggests that the outcomes of use of Impella and other mechanical circulatory support devices like IABP and VA-ECMO are comparable.Though there seem to be a few advantages of Impella over the others,sufficiently powered,multi-centric,randomised control trials are needed to establish its superiority.
文摘AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock(CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction(AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We selected all of the studies published from January 1st, 1997 to May 15 st, 2015 that compared the following percutaneous mechanical support in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing myocardial revascularization:(1) intra-aortic balloon pump(IABP) vs Medical therapy;(2) percutaneous left ventricular assist devices(PLVADs) vs IABP;(3) complete extracorporeal life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(ECMO) plus IABP vs IABP alone; and(4) ECMO plus IABP vs ECMO alone, in patients with AMI and CS undergoing myocardial revascularization. We evaluated the impact of the support devices on primary and secondary endpoints. Primary endpoint was the inhospital mortality due to any cause during the same hospital stay and secondary endpoint late mortality at 6-12 moof follow-up. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and seventytwo studies met the initial screening criteria. After detailed review, only 30 were selected. There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials and 24 eligible observational studies totaling 15799 patients. We found that the inhospital mortality was:(1) significantly higher with IABP support vs medical therapy(RR = +15%, P = 0.0002);(2) was higher, although not significantly, with PLVADs compared to IABP(RR = +14%, P = 0.21); and(3) significantly lower in patients treated with ECMO plus IABP vs IABP(RR =-44%, P = 0.0008) or ECMO(RR =-20%, P = 0.006) alone. In addition, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that in the comparison of IABP vs medical therapy, the sample size was adequate to demonstrate a significant increase in risk due to IABP. CONCLUSION: Inhospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP vs medical therapy. PLVADs did not reduce early mortality. ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced inhospital mortality compared to IABP.
文摘BACKGROUND Critical care is rapidly evolving with significant innovations to decrease hospital stays and costs.To our knowledge,there is limited data on factors that affect the length of stay and hospital charges in cirrhotic patients who present with STelevation myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock(SRCS).AIM To identify the factors that increase inpatient mortality,length of stay,and total hospital charges in patients with liver cirrhosis(LC)compared to those without LC.METHODS This study includes all adults over 18 from the National Inpatient Sample 2017 database.The study consists of two groups of patients,including SRCS with LC and without LC.Inpatient mortality,length of stay,and total hospital charges are the primary outcomes between the two groups.We used STATA 16 to perform statistical analysis.The Pearson's chi-square test compares the categorical variables.Propensity-matched scoring with univariate and multivariate logistic regression generated the odds ratios for inpatient mortality,length of stay,and resource utilization.RESULTS This study includes a total of 35798453 weighted hospitalized patients from the 2017 National Inpatient Sample.The two groups are SRCS without LC(n=758809)and SRCS with LC(n=11920).The majority of patients were Caucasian in both groups(67%vs 72%).The mean number of patients insured with Medicare was lower in the LC group(60%vs 56%)compared to the other group,and those who had at least three or more comorbidities(53%vs 90%)were significantly higher in the LC group compared to the non-LC group.Inpatient mortality was also considerably higher in the LC group(28.7%vs 10.63%).Length of Stay(LOS)is longer in the LC group compared to the non-LC group(9 vs 5.6).Similarly,total hospital charges are higher in patients with LC($147407.80 vs$113069.10,P≤0.05).Inpatient mortality is lower in the early percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI)group(OR:0.79<0.11),however,it is not statistically significant.Both early Impella(OR:1.73<0.05)and early extracorporeal membrane oxygenation(ECMO)(OR:3.10 P<0.05)in the LC group were associated with increased mortality.Early PCI(-2.57 P<0.05)and Impella(-3.25 P<0.05)were also both associated with shorter LOS compared to those who did not.Early ECMO does not impact the LOS;however,it does increase total hospital charge(addition of$24717.85,P<0.05).CONCLUSION LC is associated with a significantly increased inpatient mortality,length of stay,and total hospital charges in patients who develop SRCS.Rural and Non-teaching hospitals have significantly increased odds of extended hospital stays and higher adjusted total hospital charges.The Association of LC with worse outcomes outlines the essential need to monitor these patients closely and treat them early on with higher acuity care.Patients with early PCI had both shorter LOS and reduced inpatient mortality,while early Impella was associated with increased mortality and shorter LOS.Early ECMO is associated with increased mortality and higher total hospital charges.This finding should affect the decision to follow through with interventional management in this cohort of patients as it is associated with poor outcomes and immense resource utilization.
