Cargando…
Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients
PURPOSE: Prognosis of patients presenting with INTERMACS 1 critical cardiogenic shock is generally poor. The aim of our study was to investigate the results of CentriMag™ extracorporeal short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to decision in patients presenting with critical cardiogenic...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Singapore
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7526512/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33020688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12055-020-01060-6 |
_version_ | 1783588890079133696 |
---|---|
author | Mehta, Vipin Venkateswaran, Rajamiyer V. |
author_facet | Mehta, Vipin Venkateswaran, Rajamiyer V. |
author_sort | Mehta, Vipin |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Prognosis of patients presenting with INTERMACS 1 critical cardiogenic shock is generally poor. The aim of our study was to investigate the results of CentriMag™ extracorporeal short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to decision in patients presenting with critical cardiogenic shock in our unit. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 63 consecutive patients from January 2005 to June 2017, who were treated with a CentriMag™ device at our institution as a bridge to decision. Patients requiring extracorporeal support for post-cardiotomy shock and for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplantation were excluded. RESULTS: Patients’ median age was 44 years (IQR 31–52, range 15.4–62.0) and 42 (67%) were male. Primary diagnosis at presentation was ischaemic cardiomyopathy (n = 24; 38.1%), viral myocarditis (n = 19; 30.2%), idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 8; 12.7%), and others (n = 12; 19%). The median duration of support was 25 (IQR 9.5–56) days. A total of 7 (11%) patients were supported with peripheral veno-arterial (VA) extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), 6 (9%) with central VA ECMO, 8 (13%) with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), 17 (27%) with biventricular assist device (BiVAD), and 25 (40%) with ECMO and then converted to BiVAD. Overall, 22 (34.9%) patients died while on CentriMag™ mechanical circulatory support. Complications included bleeding requiring reoperation/intervention in 24 (38%), renal failure requiring dialysis in 29 (46%), bacterial infections in 23 (37%), fungal infections in 15 (24%), critical limb ischaemia in 6 (10%), and stroke in 8 (13%). The overall survival to successful explant from CentriMag™ was 65.1% (n = 41) and survival to hospital discharge was 58.7% (n = 37). Of these, 10 (16%) had cardiac recovery and were successfully explanted, 20 (32%) were bridged to heart transplantation, 11 (17%) were bridged to long-term left ventricular assist device, 3 (4.7%) were later on transplanted, and 1 (1.6%) recovered to decommissioning. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 55%, 46%, and 23% respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate an excellent outcome with the use of the CentriMag™ device in this seriously ill population. Despite requiring multiple procedures, over 58% of patients were discharged from hospital with 5-year survival of 46%. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7526512 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Singapore |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75265122020-10-01 Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients Mehta, Vipin Venkateswaran, Rajamiyer V. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Original Article. PURPOSE: Prognosis of patients presenting with INTERMACS 1 critical cardiogenic shock is generally poor. The aim of our study was to investigate the results of CentriMag™ extracorporeal short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to decision in patients presenting with critical cardiogenic shock in our unit. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 63 consecutive patients from January 2005 to June 2017, who were treated with a CentriMag™ device at our institution as a bridge to decision. Patients requiring extracorporeal support for post-cardiotomy shock and for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplantation were excluded. RESULTS: Patients’ median age was 44 years (IQR 31–52, range 15.4–62.0) and 42 (67%) were male. Primary diagnosis at presentation was ischaemic cardiomyopathy (n = 24; 38.1%), viral myocarditis (n = 19; 30.2%), idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 8; 12.7%), and others (n = 12; 19%). The median duration of support was 25 (IQR 9.5–56) days. A total of 7 (11%) patients were supported with peripheral veno-arterial (VA) extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), 6 (9%) with central VA ECMO, 8 (13%) with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), 17 (27%) with biventricular assist device (BiVAD), and 25 (40%) with ECMO and then converted to BiVAD. Overall, 22 (34.9%) patients died while on CentriMag™ mechanical circulatory support. Complications included bleeding requiring reoperation/intervention in 24 (38%), renal failure requiring dialysis in 29 (46%), bacterial infections in 23 (37%), fungal infections in 15 (24%), critical limb ischaemia in 6 (10%), and stroke in 8 (13%). The overall survival to successful explant from CentriMag™ was 65.1% (n = 41) and survival to hospital discharge was 58.7% (n = 37). Of these, 10 (16%) had cardiac recovery and were successfully explanted, 20 (32%) were bridged to heart transplantation, 11 (17%) were bridged to long-term left ventricular assist device, 3 (4.7%) were later on transplanted, and 1 (1.6%) recovered to decommissioning. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 55%, 46%, and 23% respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate an excellent outcome with the use of the CentriMag™ device in this seriously ill population. Despite requiring multiple procedures, over 58% of patients were discharged from hospital with 5-year survival of 46%. Springer Singapore 2020-09-30 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7526512/ /pubmed/33020688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12055-020-01060-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article. Mehta, Vipin Venkateswaran, Rajamiyer V. Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients |
title | Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients |
title_full | Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients |
title_fullStr | Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients |
title_short | Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients |
title_sort | outcome of centrimag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (intermacs 1) patients |
topic | Original Article. |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7526512/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33020688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12055-020-01060-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mehtavipin outcomeofcentrimagextracorporealmechanicalcirculatorysupportuseincriticalcardiogenicshockintermacs1patients AT venkateswaranrajamiyerv outcomeofcentrimagextracorporealmechanicalcirculatorysupportuseincriticalcardiogenicshockintermacs1patients |