scholarly journals Intra-aortic balloon pump

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Tigges
Keyword(s):  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump

Intra-aortic balloon pump following CABG: 8 years experience

2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Joskowiak ◽  
U Kappert ◽  
C Krickau ◽  
H Raziq ◽  
S Tugtekin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump

Benefits of the Preemptive Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: An Audit of Practice in a Regional Cardiothoracic Center

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. E70-E74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nnamdi Nwaejike ◽  
Gianfranco Campalani ◽  
Dennis Gladstone ◽  
O. C. Nzewi
Keyword(s):  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document