Rescue Levitronix Centrimag as a bridge to decision: is it still worthwhile?

被引：7

作者：

Capoccia M. ^{[1
]}

Avtaar Singh S. ^{[1
]}

Hegazy Y. ^{[1
]}

Sinclair A. ^{[2
]}

Al-Attar N. ^{[1
]}

Mahesh B. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Cardiac Surgery and Transplantation, SNAHFS, GJNH, Glasgow

[2] Cardiac Anaesthesia, GJNH, Glasgow

来源：

Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery | 2017年 / 33卷 / 4期

关键词：

Cardiogenic shock; Cardiomyopathy; Heart transplantation;

D O I：

10.1007/s12055-017-0582-2

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Aim: Cardiogenic shock has poor prognosis with medical management alone and/or intra-aortic balloon pump support. Levitronix Centrimag®centrifugal pump has been increasingly used to bridge patients to decision for further advanced mechanical uni- or bi-ventricular support with a view to heart transplantation on the newly implemented super-urgent recipient scheme. We sought to review our experience as a designated centre for mechanical circulatory support to investigate its role despite the emergence of percutaneously implantable miniature devices. Methods: Between April 2009 and December 2015, 98 patients in cardiogenic shock [age 41.4 ± 12.7 years; 52 (53%) male and 46 (47%) female] underwent mechanical circulatory support of whom 90 were treated with Levitronix Centrimag as a primary procedure. Diagnosis was dilated cardiomyopathy [37 (38.1%)], ischaemic cardiomyopathy [25 (25.8%)], and other [36 (36.1%)]. Main indications were cardiogenic shock or decompensated heart failure. Other indications were early graft failure following heart transplant or right ventricular failure following left ventricular assist device insertion. Levitronix support was as follows: extra corporeal membrane oxygenation [22 (24.4%) central, 26 (28.9%) peripheral], Left Ventricular Assist Device [12 (13.3%)], Right Ventricular Assist Device [5 (5.6%)], and Bi-Ventricular Assist Device [25 (27.8%)]. Results: The average duration of support on Levitronix was 17.1 days (range 1–111). The 30-day survival was 52% (47 patients), 6-month survival was 40% (36 patients), and 12-month survival was 37.7% (34 patients). Of the surviving patients, five underwent successful orthotopic heart transplantation, one received a HeartMate II which was subsequently explanted because of myocardial recovery, and one received a HeartMate II and is currently on the transplant list. Cause of death while on support was multiorgan failure [12 (13.3%)], cardiovascular system (CVA)/Neurological [10 (11.1%)], further haemodynamic deterioration [9 (10%)], graft failure [5 (5.6%)], bleeding [4 (4.4%)], sepsis [3 (3.3%)], myocardial infarction [3 (3.3%)], right ventricular failure [3 (3.3%)], pulmonary embolism [1 (1.1%)], embolic [1 (1.1%)], respiratory failure [1 (1.1%)], influenza + rejection [1 (1.1%)], and unknown [3 (3.3%)]. Conclusion: Levitronix Centrimag® remains a versatile device with potential in an acute setting. Early aggressive treatment and a younger patient population may well justify its use. © 2017, Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons.

引用

页码：303 / 308

页数：5

共 29 条

[11]

De Robertis F., Rogers P., Amrani M., Et al., Bridge to decision using the Levitronix Centrimag short-term ventricular assist device, J Heart Lung Transplant, 27, pp. 474-478, (2008)

[12]

Santise G., Petrou M., Pepper J.R., Dreyfus G., Khaghani A., Birks E.J., Levitronix as a short-term salvage treatment for primary graft failure after heart transplantation, J Heart Lung Transplant, 25, pp. 495-498, (2006)

[13]

Belohlavek J., Mlcek M., Huptych M., Et al., Coronary versus carotid blood flow and coronary perfusion pressure in a pig model of prolonged cardiac arrest treated by different modes of venoarterial ECMO and intraaortic balloon counterpulsation, Crit Care, 16, (2012)

[14]

Patrick H., The rhythm is gonna get you..”: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with and without intra-aortic balloon pumps, Crit Care Med, 42, pp. 2143-2144, (2014)

[15]

Petroni T., Harrois A., Amour J., Et al., Intra-aortic balloon pump effects on macrocirculation and microcirculation in cardiogenic shock patients supported by venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Crit Care Med, 42, pp. 2075-2082, (2014)

[16]

Yang F., Jia Z.S., Xing J.L., Wang Z., Et al., Effects of intra-aortic balloon pump on cerebral blood flow during peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, J Transl Med, 12, (2014)

[17]

Clark J.B., Wang S., Palanzo D.A., Et al., Current techniques and outcomes in extracorporeal life support, Artif Organs, 39, pp. 926-930, (2015)

[18]

International summary, January 2015. Ann Arbor, MI. Extracorporeal Life Support, Organization, pp. 1-26, (2015)

[19]

Burkhoff D., Cohen H., Brunckhorst C., O'Neill W.W., A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tandem Heart percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock, Am Heart J, 152, pp. 469.e1-469.e8, (2006)

[20]

Thiele H., Smalling R.W., Schuler G.C., Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, Eur Heart J, 28, pp. 2057-2063, (2007)

← 1 2 3 →