scholarly journals Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge to Lung Transplantation: A Single Canadian Institution Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Katie Kinaschuk ◽  
Sabin J. Bozso ◽  
Kieran Halloran ◽  
Ali Kapasi ◽  
Kathy Jackson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Bridge To Transplantation ◽  
University Of Alberta ◽  
Patient Demographics ◽  
Included Patient ◽  
Interventional Lung Assist ◽  
Va Ecmo ◽  
The University ◽  
Vv Ecmo

Background. Lung transplant (LTx) waitlists continue to grow internationally. Consequently, more patients are progressing to require mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplantation (BTT). MCS strategies include interventional lung assist (iLA) and venovenous (VV) and venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We review our series of patients bridged with MCS while listed for LTx. Methods. All consecutive patients, listed for LTx requiring MCS as a BTT at the University of Alberta from 2004 to 2015, were included. Patient demographics and outcomes were compared for the 3 groups (iLA, VV-ECMO, and VA-ECMO). Results. Of the 24 patients supported with MCS devices, 17 were successfully transplanted and 7 died waiting. In total, 25% (n=6) were bridged with VA-ECMO, 54% (n=13) with VV-ECMO, and 21% (n=5) with iLA. Overall, 71% of patients were bridged successfully to LTx. The 1-year survival posttransplantation was 88%. Conclusion. We have demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing the MCS modalities of VA-ECMO, VV-ECMO, and most recently iLA, as a BTT. MCS is a viable strategy for BTT, offering improved survival outcomes for decompensating adult patients awaiting LTx, resulting in excellent survival posttransplantation.

Bridge to transplantation with mechanical circulatory support extended beyond one year

2005 ◽  
Vol 53 (S 3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Jurmann ◽  
Y Weng ◽  
T Drews ◽  
M Pasic ◽  
H Lehmkuhl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Bridge To Transplantation ◽  
One Year

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with concomitant Impella versus concomitant intra-aortic-balloon-pump for cardiogenic shock

Perfusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026765912110339
Author(s):  
Shek-yin Au ◽  
Ka-man Fong ◽  
Chun-Fung Sunny Tsang ◽  
Ka-Chun Alan Chan ◽  
Chi Yuen Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Queen Elizabeth Hospital ◽  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Va Ecmo

Introduction: The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella are left ventricular unloading devices with peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in place and later serve as bridging therapy when VA-ECMO is terminated. We aimed to determine the potential differences in clinical outcomes and rate of complications between the two combinations of mechanical circulatory support. Methods: This was a retrospective, single institutional cohort study conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) of Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong. Inclusion criteria included all patients aged ⩾18 years, who had VA-ECMO support, and who had left ventricular unloading by either IABP or Impella between January 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020. Patients <18 years old, with central VA-ECMO, who did not require left ventricular unloading, or who underwent surgical venting procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was ECMO duration. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in the ICU, hospital LOS, mortality, and complication rate. Results: Fifty-two patients with ECMO + IABP and 14 patients with ECMO + Impella were recruited. No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of ECMO duration (2.5 vs 4.6 days, p = 0.147), ICU LOS (7.7 vs 10.8 days, p = 0.367), and hospital LOS (14.8 vs 16.5 days, p = 0.556) between the two groups. No statistically significant difference was observed in the ECMO, ICU, and hospital mortalities between the two groups. Specific complications related to the ECMO and Impella combination were also noted. Conclusions: Impella was not shown to offer a statistically significant clinical benefit compared with IABP in conjunction with ECMO. Clinicians should be aware of the specific complications of using Impella.

scholarly journals Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as mechanical circulatory support in adult septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis with individual participant data meta-regression analysis

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Ruiyang Ling ◽  
Kollengode Ramanathan ◽  
Wynne Hsing Poon ◽  
Chuen Seng Tan ◽  
Nicolas Brechot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Septic Shock ◽  
Va Ecmo

Abstract Background While recommended by international societal guidelines in the paediatric population, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as mechanical circulatory support for refractory septic shock in adults is controversial. We aimed to characterise the outcomes of adults with septic shock requiring VA ECMO, and identify factors associated with survival. Methods We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception until 1st June 2021, and included all relevant publications reporting on > 5 adult patients requiring VA ECMO for septic shock. Study quality and certainty in evidence were assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, respectively. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, duration of ECMO support, complications while on ECMO, and sources of sepsis. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted. Data synthesis We included 14 observational studies with 468 patients in the meta-analysis. Pooled survival was 36.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.6%–50.1%). Survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 20% (62.0%, 95%-CI: 51.6%–72.0%) was significantly higher than those with LVEF > 35% (32.1%, 95%-CI: 8.69%–60.7%, p = 0.05). Survival reported in studies from Asia (19.5%, 95%-CI: 13.0%–26.8%) was notably lower than those from Europe (61.0%, 95%-CI: 48.4%–73.0%) and North America (45.5%, 95%-CI: 16.7%–75.8%). GRADE assessment indicated high certainty of evidence for pooled survival. Conclusions When treated with VA ECMO, the majority of patients with septic shock and severe sepsis-induced myocardial depression survive. However, VA ECMO has poor outcomes in adults with septic shock without severe left ventricular depression. VA ECMO may be a viable treatment option in carefully selected adult patients with refractory septic shock.

scholarly journals One year improvement of exercise capacity in patients with mechanical circulatory support as bridge to transplantation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne E.A. Felix ◽  
Martinus I.F. Oerlemans ◽  
Faiz Z. Ramjankhan ◽  
Steven A. Muller ◽  
Hans H. Kirkels ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exercise Capacity ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Bridge To Transplantation ◽  
One Year

scholarly journals Long-Term Continuous-Flow Biventricular Support in a 63-Year-Old Woman

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-112
Author(s):  
Andrew C.W. Baldwin ◽  
William E. Cohn ◽  
Jeffrey A. Morgan ◽  
O.H. Frazier
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Flow ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Orthotopic Heart Transplantation ◽  
Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Bridge To Transplantation ◽  
Similar Patient ◽  
Ventricular Support

We describe the successful use of long-term biventricular continuous-flow mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplantation in a small-framed 63-year-old woman with long-standing nonischemic cardiomyopathy. After placement of a left-sided HeartWare HVAD, persistent right-sided heart failure necessitated implantation of a second HeartWare device for long-term right ventricular support. After 262 days, the patient underwent successful orthotopic heart transplantation and was discharged from the hospital. This report indicates the feasibility of biventricular device support in older patients of relatively small stature, and our results may encourage others to consider this therapy in similar patient populations.

scholarly journals Bridge to transplantation from mechanical circulatory support: a narrative review

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Alice L. Zhou ◽  
Eric W. Etchill ◽  
Katherine A. Giuliano ◽  
Benjamin L. Shou ◽  
Kavita Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Bridge To Transplantation

Abstract 13425: Comparison Between Impella 5.0 and External Corporeal Left Ventricular Assist Device as a Bridge to Decision in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Kondo ◽  
Naoki Shibata ◽  
shingo kazama ◽  
Yuki Kimura ◽  
Hideo Oishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Cardiac Recovery ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Bridge To Decision ◽  
Va Ecmo

Background: In cardiogenic shock refractory to medical treatment, choosing and changing mechanical circulatory support to stabilize hemodynamics until cardiac recovery or next treatment is a strategic cornerstone for improving the outcome. We aimed to clarify the differences in treatment course and outcome between Impella 5.0 and 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 treated with Impella 5.0 or eLVAD as a bridge to decision (BTD) at our medical center from December 2011 to January 2020. Results: A total of 26 patients (median age 40 years, 16 males) were analyzed. Of seven patients managed with Impella 5.0, one patients used Impella CP and four patients used peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) before Impella 5.0 implantation. On the other hand, of 19 patients managed with eLVAD, 11 patients used VA-ECMO before eLVAD implantation. In patients managed with Impella 5.0, Impella 5.0 was removed successfully in two patients (29%) and four patients (71%) underwent the operation for durable LVAD. In patients managed with eLVAD, eLVAD was successfully removed in three patients (16%), nine patients (47%) required durable LVAD, and seven patients (37%) died during eLVAD management. The period between implantation of Impella 5.0 or eLVAD to durable LVAD surgery was significantly shorter with Impella 5.0 (58 [38 - 95] vs. 235 [126 - 318] days, p=0.001). During durable LVAD implantation, cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter and a significantly smaller amount of red blood cells transfusion was required with Impella 5.0 (149 [125 - 182] vs. 192 [170 - 250] minutes, p=0.042; 7.0 [5.0 - 9.5] vs. 15.0 [10.0- 2.0] units, p=0.019, respectively). There were 4 massive stroke events in eLVAD, but no massive stroke events in Impella 5.0. In Impella 5.0. Conclusions: Impella 5.0 facilitates smoother management as a BTD and reduces surgical invasiveness during durable LVAD implantation. Impella 5.0 would be a more effective option for success to cardiac recovery or next therapy than eLVAD.

scholarly journals Mechanical circulatory support in refractory cardiogenic shock due to influenza virus-related myocarditis

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 2000925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Thorben Sieweke ◽  
Muharrem Akin ◽  
Sebastian Stetskamp ◽  
Christian Riehle ◽  
Danny Jonigk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Influenza Virus Infection ◽  
Axial Flow ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Influenza B ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Va Ecmo ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThere is scarce evidence for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with influenza-related myocarditis complicated by refractory cardiogenic shock (rCS). We sought to investigate the impact of MCS using combined veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and micro-axial flow pumps (the ECMELLA concept) in influenza-related myocarditis complicated by rCS.MethodsThis is a prospective, observational analysis from the single centre HAnnover Cardiac Unloading REgistry (HACURE) from two recent epidemic influenza seasons. We analysed patients with verified influenza-associated myocarditis complicated by rCS who were admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) on MCS. Subsequently, we performed a propensity score (PS) matched analysis to patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by rCS and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (DCM) related rCS.ResultsWe describe a series of seven patients with rCS-complicated influenza-related myocarditis (mean age 56±10 years, 58% male, influenza A (n=2)/influenza B (n=5)). No patient had been vaccinated prior to the influenza season. MCS was provided using combined VA-ECMO and Impella micro-axial flow pump. In two patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, VA-ECMO had been implanted for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. All patients died within 18 days of hospital admission. By PS-based comparison to patients with AMI- or DCM-related rCS and combined MCS, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in influenza-related rCS.ConclusionDespite initial stabilisation with combined MCS in patients with rCS-complicated influenza-related myocarditis, the detrimental course of shock could not be stopped and all patients died. Influenza virus infection potentially critically affects other organs besides the heart, leading to irreversible end-organ damage that MCS cannot compensate for and, therefore, results in a devastating outcome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document