Elevated Central Venous Pressure As A Trigger For Right Heart Failure Evaluation In Patients Receiving Left-sided Mechanical Support For Cardiogenic Shock

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. S55
Author(s):  
Evan H. Whitehead ◽  
Katherine Thayer ◽  
Daniel Burkhoff ◽  
Nir Uriel ◽  
E. Magnus Ohman ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. S418-S419
Author(s):  
J.M. Joly ◽  
A. El-Dabh ◽  
R. Marshell ◽  
A. Chatterjee ◽  
M.G. Smith ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Vikram Aggarwal ◽  
Yoonju Cho ◽  
Aniruddha Chatterjee ◽  
Dickson Cheung

Central venous pressure (CVP) is a measure of the mean pressure within the thoracic vena cava, which is the largest vein in the body and responsible for returning blood from the systemic circulation to the heart. CVP is a major determinant of the filling pressure and cardiac preload, and like any fluid pump, the heart depends on an adequate preload to function effectively. Low venous return translates into a lower preload and a drop in overall cardiac output, a relationship described by the Frank-Starling Mechanism. CVP is an important physiological parameter, the correct measure of which is a clinically relevant diagnostic tool for heart failure patients. In addition to other vitals such as heart rate and mean arterial pressure, accurate measures of central venous pressure through simple diagnostic instrumentation would provide physicians with a clear picture of cardiac functionality, and allow for more targeted treatment. Recent literature has also shown that measuring CVP can be an important hemodynamic indicator for the early identification and treatment of more widespread conditions, such as sepsis (Rivers, Nguyen, Havstad, & Ressler, 2001). With over five million patients (American Heart Association, http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. jhtml) in the U.S. presenting with heart failure-like symptoms annually, a current challenge for physicians is to obtain a quick and accurate measure of a patient’s central venous pressure in a manner that poses minimum discomfort.


Author(s):  
Ali İhsan Hasde ◽  
Mehmet Cahit Sarıcaoğlu ◽  
Nur Dikmen Yaman ◽  
Çağdaş Baran ◽  
Evren Özçınar ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES Our goal was to compare the haemodynamic effects of different mechanical left ventricular (LV) unloading strategies and clinical outcomes in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). METHODS A total of 448 patients supported with VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock between 1 March 2015 and 31 January 2020 were included and analysed in a single-centre, retrospective case–control study. Fifty-three patients (11.8%) on VA-ECMO required LV unloading. Percutaneous balloon atrial septostomy (PBAS), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and transapical LV vent (TALVV) strategies were compared with regards to the composite rate of death, procedure-related complications and neurological complications. The secondary outcomes were reduced pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary artery pressure, central venous pressure, left atrial diameter and resolution of pulmonary oedema on a chest X-ray within 48 h. RESULTS No death related to the LV unloading procedure was detected. Reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure was highest with the TALVV technique (17.2 ± 2.1 mmHg; P < 0.001) and was higher in the PBAS than in the IABP group; the difference was significant (9.6 ± 2.5 and 3.9 ± 1.3, respectively; P = 0.001). Reduction in central venous pressure with TALVV was highest with the other procedures (7.4 ± 1.1 mmHg; P < 0.001). However, procedure-related complications were significantly higher with TALVV compared to the PBAS and IABP groups (50% vs 17.6% and 10%, respectively; P = 0.015). We observed no significant differences in mortality or neurological complications between the groups. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that TALVV was the most effective method for LV unloading compared with PBAS and IABP for VA-ECMO support but was associated with complications. Efficient LV unloading may not improve survival.


2013 ◽  
Vol 162 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Iacoviello ◽  
Agata Puzzovivo ◽  
Francesco Monitillo ◽  
Dea Saulle ◽  
Maria Silvia Lattarulo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document