Ablation of atrial arrhythmias in patients with cardiogenic shock on mechanical circulatory support.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mantini N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6404096 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ablation of atrial arrhythmias in patients with cardiogenic shock on mechanical circulatory support.
Mantini Nick N Zipse Matthew M Tompkins Christine C Varosy Paul D PD Sauer William H WH Nguyen Duy T DT
HeartRhythm case reports 20181128 3
Similar Datasets
Project description:Cardiogenic shock complicates about 5% to 8% of all admissions for acute myocardial infarction, and despite advancement in treatment over the past 50 years, mortality remains unacceptably high. Management with vasoactive agents after revascularization can have its limitations and thus mechanical circulatory support is often initiated. Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) are the devices most commonly used worldwide. IABPs appeared to improve mortality when used along with fibrinolytic therapy but may not when used along with percutaneous coronary interventions. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is utilized in the setting of worsening tissue perfusion despite inotropes and IABP utilization. Although retrospective studies show some mortality benefit, randomized prospective studies have not yet demonstrated ECMO to be advantageous either with or without IABP. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices such as TandemHeart® and Impella are easier to institute than ECMO and are better for hemodynamics compared with the IABP but also have not yet shown a mortality benefit. More randomized studies are needed to define the most appropriate role of the various mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock.
| S-EPMC4191250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.
| S-EPMC5640487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite advanced therapies, the mortality of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains around 50%. Mechanical complications of MI are rare nowadays but associated with high mortality in patients who present with CS. Different treatment strategies and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been increasingly used to improve the grim prognosis of refractory CS. This article discusses current evidence regarding the use of MCS in MI complicated by CS, ventricular septal rupture, free wall rupture and acute mitral regurgitation. Device selection should be tailored according to the cause and severity of CS. Early MCS initiation and multidisciplinary team cooperation is mandatory for good results. MCS associated bleeding remains a major complication and an obstacle to better outcomes. Ongoing prospective randomized trials will improve current knowledge regarding MCS indications, timing, and patient selection in the coming years.
| S-EPMC8915426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used for cardiogenic shock (CS). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate which MCS strategy offers advantages.MethodsA systemic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies included double-blind, randomized controlled, and observational trials, with 30-day follow-ups. Paired independent researchers conducted the screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and consistency and heterogeneity assessment.ResultsWe included 39 studies (1 report). No significant difference in 30-day mortality was noted between venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and VA-ECMO plus Impella, Impella, and medical therapy. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the optimal ranking of the interventions was surgical venting plus VA-ECMO, medical therapy, VA-ECMO plus Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, Tandem Heart, VA-ECMO, and Impella plus IABP. Regarding in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the forest plot showed low heterogeneity. The results of the node-splitting approach showed that direct and indirect comparisons had a relatively high consistency.ConclusionsIABP more effectively reduce the incidence of 30-day mortality compared with VA-ECMO and Impella for the treatment of CS.
| S-EPMC8842943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early use of mechanical circulatory support, e.g. veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or left ventricular unloading by microaxial pump in refractory cardiogenic shock is recommended in current guidelines. Development of acquired von Willebrand Syndrome (AVWS) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and ECMO has been reported. There is an increasing number of patients treated with the Impella® CP microaxial pump for left ventricular unloading. However, the prevalence of AVWS in these high risk patients is unknown and needs to be determined. We therefore screened 21 patients (68 ± 11years) treated with Impella® (17 for cardiogenic shock, 4 for protected PCI) for the presence of AVWS by determining von Willebrand factor multimers, VWF collagen binding capacity and VWF antigen. During the time course of Impella® support, 20/21 patients (95%) developed AVWS (mean duration of support: 135 ± 114 hours, mean time from device implantation to first diagnosis of AVWS: 10.6 ± 10.8 hours). Our data indicate that AVWS is a common phenomenon during left ventricular unloading via microaxial pump support. Thus, AVWS has to be considered as contributing factor for potential bleeding complications in this high risk patient population, especially in the context of dual antiplatelet therapy.
| S-EPMC5555672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the study was to compare the renal outcomes in patients presenting with all-cause cardiogenic shock who were supported by either Impella devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or vasopressors alone. Outcomes of cardiogenic shock remain poor even with the advancement of early revascularization and circulatory supportive care. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device has emerged as an effective strategy in protecting end organ function especially renal function during high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in patients with cardiogenic shock. Currently, comparative data amongst various MCS modalities and their association with improvement of renal function in cardiogenic shock patients have not been well characterized.MethodsData from New Jersey Cardiac Catheterization Data registry of cardiogenic shock patients from a single tertiary care institution that underwent cardiac catheterization and the modality used to treat were obtained, either with Impella devices, IABP, or treatment with vasopressors alone. Retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) on patients with cardiogenic shock prior to and after cardiac catheterization and renal function was evaluated over the course of 96 h after cardiac catheterization. Statistical analysis was performed to ascertain significant difference in creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients who received Impella devices, IABP, or were treated with vasopressors alone.ResultsA total of 61 all-cause cardiogenic shock patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study with 19 receiving IABPs, 15 receiving Impella devices, and 27 treated with vasopressors alone. Baseline characteristics among these three groups did not show any statistically significant difference. A total of 29 cardiogenic shock patients had experienced AKI prior to cardiac catheterization in which those receiving Impella devices showed statistically significant decrease in creatinine and increase in eGFR at 72 and 96 h (P < 0.05) compared to baseline. Within the same cohort, Impella group showed statistically significant lower creatinine at 96 h when compared to IABP. Patients that experienced AKI after cardiac catheterization did not show any statistically significant changes in renal function regardless of modality used.ConclusionThe results of our study suggest that Impella devices improve renal function in all-cause cardiogenic shock patients who experience AKI prior to undergoing cardiac catheterization.
| S-EPMC8166292 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10586985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices increase systemic blood pressure and end organ perfusion while reducing cardiac filling pressures.Methods and resultsThe National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCT03677180) is a single-arm, multicenter study. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of utilizing early MCS with Impella in patients presenting with AMI-CS. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. A total of 406 patients were enrolled at 80 sites between 2016 and 2020. Average age was 64±12 years, 24% were female, 17% had a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 27% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 9% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. Patients presented with a mean systolic blood pressure of 77.2±19.2 mm Hg, 85% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, mean lactate was 4.8±3.9 mmol/L and cardiac power output was 0.67±0.29 watts. At 24 hours, mean systolic blood pressure improved to 103.9±17.8 mm Hg, lactate to 2.7±2.8 mmol/L, and cardiac power output to 1.0±1.3 watts. Procedural survival, survival to discharge, survival to 30 days, and survival to 1 year were 99%, 71%, 68%, and 53%, respectively.ConclusionsEarly use of MCS in AMI-CS is feasible across varying health care settings and resulted in improvements to early hemodynamics and perfusion. Survival rates to hospital discharge were high. Given the encouraging results from our analysis, randomized clinical trials are warranted to assess the role of utilizing early MCS, using a standardized, multidisciplinary approach.
| S-EPMC10727311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMechanical circulatory support (MCS) with the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) has been associated with higher in-hospital mortality than intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in the Premier Healthcare Database and National Cardiovascular Data Registry.MethodsThe objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe trends and outcomes of Impella usage in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with MCS (Impella or IABP) using real-world observational data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) including hospitalizations for AMICS managed with MCS between January 2012 to December 2017. The primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, transfusion, acute kidney injury, stroke, total costs, and length of stay. Propensity score matching was performed with hierarchical models using risk factor and Elixhauser comorbidity variables.Results and conclusionWe identified 54,480 hospitalizations for AMICS managed with MCS including 5750 (10.5%) utilizing Impella. Throughout the study period, Impella usage increased yearly to 19.9% of AMICS cases in 2017. After propensity score matching, Impella was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.13) and transfusions (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.40-2.78) than IABP, without association with acute kidney injury or stroke. Impella use was associated with higher hospital costs (mean difference $22,416.80 [95% CI $17,029-27,804]). Impella usage for AMICS increased significantly from 2012 to 2017 and was associated with increased in-hospital mortality and costs. Randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to assess the safety and efficacy of Impella.
| S-EPMC10877703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There 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. METHODS:This 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. RESULTS:We 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. CONCLUSION:Despite 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.
| S-EPMC7469974 | biostudies-literature