Dataset Information

A Comprehensive Review of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

ABSTRACT: Treatment strategies to combat cardiogenic shock (CS) have remained stagnant over the past decade. Mortality rates among patients who suffer CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high at 50%. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have evolved as novel treatment strategies to restore systemic perfusion to allow cardiac recovery in the short term, or as durable support devices in refractory heart failure in the long term. Haemodynamic parameters derived from right heart catheterization assist in the selection of an appropriate MCS device and escalation of mechanical support where needed. Evidence favouring the use of one MCS device over another is scant. An intra-aortic balloon pump is the most commonly used short-term MCS device, despite providing only modest haemodynamic support. Impella CP® has been increasingly used for CS in recent times and remains an important focus of research for patients with AMI-CS. Among durable devices, Heartmate® 3 is the most widely used in the USA. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these MCS devices and to guide the operator for their use in CS. This article provides a brief overview of the types of currently available MCS devices and the indications for their use.

SUBMITTER: Atti V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9524665 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comprehensive Review of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Atti Varunsiri V Narayanan Mahesh Anantha MA Patel Brijesh B Balla Sudarshan S Siddique Aleem A Lundgren Scott S Velagapudi Poonam P

Heart international 20220304 1

Treatment strategies to combat cardiogenic shock (CS) have remained stagnant over the past decade. Mortality rates among patients who suffer CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high at 50%. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have evolved as novel treatment strategies to restore systemic perfusion to allow cardiac recovery in the short term, or as durable support devices in refractory heart failure in the long term. Haemodynamic parameters derived from right heart catheter ...[more]

PMID: 36275352

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo highlight recent developments in the utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies and to discuss trends in MCS use following the changes to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system.BackgroundMCS devices have played an increasingly important role in the treatment of heart failure patients. Over the past several years, technological advancements have led to new developments in MCS devices and expanding indications for MCS use. In October of 2018, the UNOS heart allocation policy was revised to prioritize higher-urgency patients, including those supported with temporary MCS devices. Since then, changes in trends of MCS utilization have been observed.MethodsArticles from the PubMed database regarding the use of MCS devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies were reviewed.ConclusionsOver the past decade, utilization of temporary MCS devices, which include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), has become increasingly common. Recent advancements in MCS include the development of pVADs that can fully unload the left ventricle (LV) as well as devices designed to provide right-sided support. Technological advancements in durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have also led to improved outcomes both on the device and following heart transplantation. Following the 2018 UNOS heart allocation policy revision, the utilization of temporary MCS in advanced heart failure patients has further increased and the proportion of patients bridged directly from a temporary MCS device has exponentially risen. However, following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trends have reversed, with a decrease in the percentage of patients bridged from a temporary MCS device. As long-term data following the allocation policy revision becomes available, future studies should investigate how trends in MCS use for patients with advanced heart failure continue to evolve.

Project description:ImportanceMechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit.ObjectiveTo examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020.ExposuresTherapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only.Main outcomes and measuresUse of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use.ResultsAmong the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P < .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use.

Dataset Information

A Comprehensive Review of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Publications

A Comprehensive Review of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets