These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Minimally invasive CentriMag ventricular assist device support integrated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock patients: a comparison with conventional CentriMag biventricular support configuration.
    Author: Takeda K, Garan AR, Ando M, Han J, Topkara VK, Kurlansky P, Yuzefpolskaya M, Farr MA, Colombo PC, Naka Y, Takayama H.
    Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2017 Dec 01; 52(6):1055-1061. PubMed ID: 28651347.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: We recently developed a novel minimally invasive surgical approach that combines extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and CentriMag ventricular assist device (Ec-VAD) for the treatment of cardiogenic shock as a short-term circulatory support. We compared the outcomes of this new approach to conventional CentriMag biventricular assist device (BiVAD) support through a median sternotomy. METHODS: Between July 2015 and August 2016, 22 patients were implanted with CentriMag Ec-VAD and 90 patients were implanted with conventional CentriMag BiVAD. The Ec-VAD circuit was configured with left ventricular apical cannulation via a mini-thoracotomy and femoral venous cannulation as inflows and right axillary artery cannulation as an outflow. RESULTS: Patients with Ec-VAD were older (58 ± 9.9 vs 53 ± 13 years, P = 0.06), had more preoperative percutaneous mechanical circulatory support use (82% vs 44%, P < 0.01) and less cardiopulmonary bypass use intraoperatively (0% vs 66%, P < 0.01). Patients who received Ec-VAD required less transfusions. The Ec-VAD group had a significantly lower incidence of major bleeding events during support (32% vs 72%, P < 0.01). Average systemic flow was similar (Ec-VAD: 5.5 ± 0.94 vs BiVAD: 5.7 ± 1.1 l/min, P = 0.4). Seventeen patients (77%) with Ec-VAD survived to the next destination compared with 66 patients (73%) with BiVAD (P = 0.45). Thirty-day survival was similar between groups (Ec-VAD 86% vs BiVAD 76%, P = 0.39), and overall 1-year survival was 61% in Ec-VAD and 55% in BiVAD (P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Ec-VAD is a unique approach for the treatment of patients in cardiogenic shock. It eliminates the need for cardiopulmonary bypass and reduces blood product utilization and bleeding events.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]