scholarly journals Current Landscape of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Technology

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rani Upadhyay ◽  
Hussayn Alrayes ◽  
Scott Arno ◽  
Milan Kaushik ◽  
Mir B Basir

Mechanical circulatory support devices provide hemodynamic support to patients who present with cardiogenic shock. These devices work using different mechanisms to provide univentricular or biventricular support. There is a growing body of evidence supporting use of these devices as a goal for cardiac recovery or as a bridge to definitive therapy, but definitive, well-powered studies are still needed. Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used using shock team and protocols, which can help clinicians in decision making, balancing operator and institutional experience and expertise. The aim of this article is to review commercially available mechanical circulatory support devices, their profiles and mechanisms of action, and the evidence available regarding their use.

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. e1-e11
Author(s):  
Samantha R. Asber ◽  
Kenneth P. Shanahan ◽  
Leslie Lussier ◽  
Dorothy Didomenico ◽  
Marissa Davis ◽  
...  

Topic The growing use of acute mechanical circulatory support devices to provide hemodynamic support that has accompanied the increasing prevalence of heart failure and cardiogenic shock, despite significant improvement in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Clinical Relevance The critical care nurse plays a crucial role in managing patients receiving acute mechanical circulatory support devices and monitoring for potential complications. Purpose To review the anatomical placement and mechanics of each type of device so that nurses can anticipate patients’ hemodynamic responses and avoid complications whenever possible, thereby improving patients’ clinical outcomes. Content Covered Nursing considerations regarding the intra-aortic balloon pump, the TandemHeart, the Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-433
Author(s):  
Emalie Petersen

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.


ASAIO Journal ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. M423-M426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory K. MacLean ◽  
Peter A. Aiken ◽  
William A. Adams ◽  
Tofy Mussivand

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (08) ◽  
pp. 5578-5583
Author(s):  
Usman Sarwar ◽  
Nikky Bardia ◽  
Amod Amritphale ◽  
Hassan Tahir ◽  
MD Ghulam M.Awan

Statistical data has shown that patients now treated in cardiac catheterization laboratories are older with several comorbidities, including renal failure, diabetes, and heart failure [1]. In past patients who were not suitable candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention due to their numerous comorbidities now seems to be a suitable candidate due to tremendous advancements in the field of interventional cardiology like new stent design and availability of advance mechanical circulatory support devices, i.e., Impella performing PCI on these high-risk patients become a viable option. There are two areas of cardiology in which mechanical circulatory support devices keep evolving: one is high-risk (percutaneous coronary intervention) PCI, and the other is a cardiogenic shock that is refractory to initial pressor support.  In this article, we review evidence base data regarding the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document