Mechanical Circulatory Support Sources of Emboli and Neurological Outcome

2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-120
Author(s):  
D.W. Quinn ◽  
T.J.J. Jones ◽  
T.R. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Thrombus Formation ◽  
Neurological Complications ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Major Step ◽  
Myocar Dial ◽  
Wide Range

Long-term mechanical circulatory support devices are currently used as bridges to transplantation or myocar dial recovery and represent a major step forward in the treatment of end-stage heart failure. Examples of left ventricular assist devices/systems are Thoratec Labora tories (Berkley, CA), Baxter Novacor (Oakland, CA), and Thermo Cardiosystems Inc Heartmate (Woburn, MA). The CardioWest (Tucson, AZ) is the current total artifi cial heart device under clinical evaluation. These de vices are associated with neurological complications usually resulting from thromboembolic events to the cerebrum, cerebellum, or brainstem. The device itself is the commonest source of these emboli. Thrombus formation within the device occurs as a result of the interaction between the blood contacting surfaces of the device, the flow of blood through the device, and thrombotic tendency of the blood. There is a wide range of clinical presentation, from asymptomatic emboli detected by transcranial Doppler to devastating strokes. Strategies aimed to reduce the tendency to form throm bus are based on aggressive prevention with anticoagu lation and antiplatelet therapy and/or by design modifi cation. In particular, the use of a textured inner surface that encourages the formation of a pseudoneointima seems successful in reducing anticoagulation require ments and neurological complications.

scholarly journals Can mechanical circulatory support be an effective treatment for HFpEF patients?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Einar Gude ◽  
Arnt E. Fiane
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Cavity ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Mechanical Pressure ◽  
Entry Points

AbstractHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasing in prevalence and represents approximately 50% of all heart failure (HF) patients. Patients with this complex clinical scenario, characterized by high filling pressures, and reduced cardiac output (CO) associated with progressive multi-organ involvement, have so far not experienced any significant improvement in quality of life or survival with traditional HF treatment. Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have offered a new treatment alternative in terminal heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), providing a unique combination of significant pressure and volume unloading together with an increase in CO. The small left ventricular cavity in HFpEF patients challenges left-sided pressure unloading, and new anatomical entry points need to be explored for mechanical pressure and volume unloading. Optimized and pressure/volume-adjusted mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for HFrEF patients may conceivably be customized for HFpEF anatomy and hemodynamics. We have developed a long-term MCS device for HFpEF patients with atrial unloading in a pulsed algorithm, leading to a significant reduction of filling pressure, maintenance of pulse pressure, and increase in CO demonstrated in animal testing. In this article, we will discuss HFpEF pathology, hemodynamics, and the principles behind our novel MCS device that may improve symptoms and prognosis in HFpEF patients. Data from mock-loop hemolysis studies, acute, and chronic animal studies will be presented.

Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 and the Impella Left Direct pumps for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock at La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles-Henri David ◽  
Astrid Quessard ◽  
Ciro Mastroianni ◽  
Guillaume Hekimian ◽  
Julien Amour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Heart Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Survival Outcome ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock

Abstract OBJECTIVES Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is associated with high mortality rates of 50–80%. Although veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been used as mechanical circulatory support in patients with PCCS, it is associated with a high rate of complications and poor quality of life. The Impella 5.0 and Impella Left Direct (LD) (Impella 5.0/LD) are minimally invasive left ventricular assist devices that provide effective haemodynamic support resulting in left ventricular unloading and systemic perfusion. Our goal was to describe the outcome of patients with PCCS supported with the Impella 5.0/LD at La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients supported with the Impella 5.0/LD for PCCS between December 2010 and June 2015. Survival outcome and in-hospital complications were assessed. RESULTS A total of 29 patients (63 ± 14 years, 17% women) with PCCS were supported with the Impella 5.0/LD. At baseline, 69% experienced chronic heart failure, 66% had dilated cardiomyopathy and 57% had valvular disease. The mean EuroSCORE II was 22 ± 17 and the ejection fraction was 28 ± 11%. Most of the patients underwent isolated valve surgery (45%) or isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (38%). The mean duration of Impella support was 9 ± 7 days. Weaning from the Impella was successful in 72.4%, and 58.6% survived to discharge. Recovery of native heart function was observed in 100% of discharged patients. Survival to 30 days and to 1 year from Impella implant was 58.6% and 51.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The Impella 5.0 and the Impella LD represent an excellent treatment option for critically ill patients with PCCS and are associated with favourable survival outcome and native heart recovery.

Development of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: 55 Years and Counting

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-433
Author(s):  
Emalie Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices ◽  
Support Devices

Heart failure is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Treatment of this condition increasingly involves mechanical circulatory support devices. Even with optimal medical therapy and use of simple cardiac devices, heart failure often leads to reduced quality of life and a shortened life span, prompting exploration of more advanced treatment approaches. Left ventricular assist devices constitute an effective alternative to cardiac transplantation. These devices are not without complications, however, and their use requires careful cooperative management by the patient’s cardiology team and primary care provider. Left ventricular assist devices have undergone many technological advancements since they were first introduced, and they will continue to evolve. This article reviews the history of different types of left ventricular assist devices, appropriate patient selection, and common complications in order to increase health professionals’ familiarity with these treatment options.

Neuroprotection for Mechanical Circulatory Support

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren E Dunn ◽  
Joshua Z Willey ◽  
Ronald M Lazar
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Air Embolism ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Cerebral Air Embolism ◽  
Cerebral Hyperperfusion ◽  
Clinical Scenarios

This chapter examines the adverse neurological events associated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS), which includes left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and percutaneous devices for cardiac disease. The most frequently encountered neurological events are ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, as well as intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), heart failure and cardiovascular disease. The management of acute cerebrovascular conditions in this population poses unique challenges, given concomitant anticoagulation usage, hemodynamically unstable patients, and lack of randomized controlled trials investigating these clinical scenarios. Other acute neurological events include cerebral hyperperfusion and cerebral air embolism. This chapter describes these complications and their risk factors, and the available evidence-based and institutional management strategies.

scholarly journals Prediction of survival of patients in cardiogenic shock treated by surgically implanted Impella 5+ short-term left ventricular assist device

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-482
Author(s):  
Gaik Nersesian ◽  
Carsten Tschöpe ◽  
Frank Spillmann ◽  
Tom Gromann ◽  
Luise Roehrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Abstract OBJECTIVES Short-term mechanical circulatory support is a life-saving treatment for acute cardiogenic shock (CS). This multicentre study investigates the preoperative predictors of 30-day mortality in CS patients treated with Impella 5.0 and 5.5 short-term left ventricular assist devices. METHODS Data of patients in CS (n = 70) treated with the Impella 5 (n = 63) and 5.5 (n = 7) in 2 centres in Berlin between October 2016 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively. RESULTS CS was caused by acute myocardial infarction (n = 16), decompensated chronic heart failure (n = 41), postcardiotomy syndrome (n = 5) and acute myocarditis (n = 8). Before implantation 12 (17%) patients underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 32 (46%) patients were ventilated. INTERMACS level 1, 2 and 3 was established in 35 (50%), 29 (41%) and 6 (9%) of patients, respectively. The mean preoperative lactate level was 4.05 mmol/l. The median support time was 7 days (IR= 4–15). In 18 cases, the pump was removed for myocardial recovery, in 22 cases, durable left ventricular assist devices were implanted, and 30 patients died on support. The overall 30-day survival was 51%. Statistical analysis showed that an increase in lactate per mmol/l [odds ratio (OR) 1.217; P = 0.015] and cardiopulmonary resuscitation before implantation (OR 16.74; P = 0.009) are predictors of 30-day survival. Based on these data, an algorithm for optimal short-term mechanical circulatory support selection is proposed. CONCLUSIONS Impella treatment is feasible in severe CS. Severe organ dysfunction, as well as the level and duration of shock predict early mortality. An algorithm based on these parameters may help identify patients who would benefit from Impella 5+ support.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document