Temporary Veno-Venous ECMO for Acute Respiratory Illness in Pediatric Berlin Heart Patient

2021 ◽  
pp. 215013512110628
Author(s):  
Madeleine L. Townsend ◽  
Sara Sadat-Hossieny ◽  
Samir Q. Latifi ◽  
Gerard Boyle ◽  
Alistair Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Severe Heart Failure ◽  
Respiratory Illness ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Unique Case ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Refractory Hypoxemia

We report the unique case of a 2-year-old male with severe heart failure requiring mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device, who developed adenovirus pneumonitis infection requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. He progressed to acute respiratory failure and refractory hypoxemia despite intubation with maximum respiratory support. The patient was placed on ECMO with improvement in lung function over four days with subsequent successful decannulation. During the ECMO run, anticoagulation required escalation given the increased circuit surface area. Patient has since recovered and undergone heart transplantation.

Abstract 13425: Comparison Between Impella 5.0 and External Corporeal Left Ventricular Assist Device as a Bridge to Decision in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Kondo ◽  
Naoki Shibata ◽  
shingo kazama ◽  
Yuki Kimura ◽  
Hideo Oishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Cardiac Recovery ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Bridge To Decision ◽  
Va Ecmo

Background: In cardiogenic shock refractory to medical treatment, choosing and changing mechanical circulatory support to stabilize hemodynamics until cardiac recovery or next treatment is a strategic cornerstone for improving the outcome. We aimed to clarify the differences in treatment course and outcome between Impella 5.0 and extracorporeal left ventricular assist device (eLVAD) in patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to medical therapy or other mechanical circulatory support. Methods: We performed a retrospective medical record review of consecutive patients who were treated with Impella 5.0 or eLVAD as a bridge to decision (BTD) at our medical center from December 2011 to January 2020. Results: A total of 26 patients (median age 40 years, 16 males) were analyzed. Of seven patients managed with Impella 5.0, one patients used Impella CP and four patients used peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) before Impella 5.0 implantation. On the other hand, of 19 patients managed with eLVAD, 11 patients used VA-ECMO before eLVAD implantation. In patients managed with Impella 5.0, Impella 5.0 was removed successfully in two patients (29%) and four patients (71%) underwent the operation for durable LVAD. In patients managed with eLVAD, eLVAD was successfully removed in three patients (16%), nine patients (47%) required durable LVAD, and seven patients (37%) died during eLVAD management. The period between implantation of Impella 5.0 or eLVAD to durable LVAD surgery was significantly shorter with Impella 5.0 (58 [38 - 95] vs. 235 [126 - 318] days, p=0.001). During durable LVAD implantation, cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter and a significantly smaller amount of red blood cells transfusion was required with Impella 5.0 (149 [125 - 182] vs. 192 [170 - 250] minutes, p=0.042; 7.0 [5.0 - 9.5] vs. 15.0 [10.0- 2.0] units, p=0.019, respectively). There were 4 massive stroke events in eLVAD, but no massive stroke events in Impella 5.0. In Impella 5.0. Conclusions: Impella 5.0 facilitates smoother management as a BTD and reduces surgical invasiveness during durable LVAD implantation. Impella 5.0 would be a more effective option for success to cardiac recovery or next therapy than eLVAD.

scholarly journals Predicting the Risk of Right Ventricular Failure in Patients Undergoing Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Frankfurter ◽  
Micaela Molinero ◽  
Julie K.K. Vishram-Nielsen ◽  
Farid Foroutan ◽  
Susanna Mak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Right Ventricular Failure ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ventricular Failure ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
C Statistic ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Background: Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a cause of major morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. It is, therefore, integral to identify patients who may benefit from biventricular support early post-LVAD implantation. Our objective was to explore the performance of risk prediction models for RVF in adult patients undergoing LVAD implantation. Methods: A systematic search was performed on Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until August 2019 for all relevant studies. Performance was assessed by discrimination (via C statistic) and calibration if reported. Study quality was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool criteria. Results: After reviewing 3878 citations, 25 studies were included, featuring 20 distinctly derived models. Five models were derived from large multicenter cohorts: the European Registry for Patients With Mechanical Circulatory Support, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support, Kormos, Pittsburgh Bayesian, and Mechanical Circulatory Support Research Network RVF models. Seventeen studies (68%) were conducted in cohorts implanted with continuous-flow LVADs exclusively. The definition of RVF as an outcome was heterogenous among models. Seven derived models (28%) were validated in at least 2 cohorts, reporting limited discrimination (C-statistic range, 0.53–0.65). Calibration was reported in only 3 studies and was variable. Conclusions: Existing RVF prediction models exhibit heterogeneous derivation and validation methodologies, varying definitions of RVF, and are mostly derived from single centers. Validation studies of these prediction models demonstrate poor-to-modest discrimination. Newer models are derived in cohorts implanted with continuous-flow LVADs exclusively and exhibit modest discrimination. Derivation of enhanced discriminatory models and their validations in multicenter cohorts is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document