Cargando…
Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock
The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) procedure aids in the provision of prolonged cardiopulmonary support, whereas the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a ventricular assist device that maintains circulation by pumping blood into the aorta from the left ventricle. Blood is circulate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9898582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36751242 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33372 |
_version_ | 1784882455782621184 |
---|---|
author | Vora, Neel Chaudhary, Rajvi Upadhyay, Hetarth Vivek Konat, Ashwati Zalavadia, Parit Padaniya, Arif Patel, Parth Patel, Nihar Prajjwal, Priyadarshi Sharma, Kamal |
author_facet | Vora, Neel Chaudhary, Rajvi Upadhyay, Hetarth Vivek Konat, Ashwati Zalavadia, Parit Padaniya, Arif Patel, Parth Patel, Nihar Prajjwal, Priyadarshi Sharma, Kamal |
author_sort | Vora, Neel |
collection | PubMed |
description | The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) procedure aids in the provision of prolonged cardiopulmonary support, whereas the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a ventricular assist device that maintains circulation by pumping blood into the aorta from the left ventricle. Blood is circulated in parallel with the heart by Impella. It draws blood straight into the aorta from the left ventricle, hence preserving the physiological flow. ECMO bypasses the left atrium and the left ventricle, and the end consequence is a non-physiological flow. In this article, we conducted a detailed analysis of various publications in the literature and examined various modalities pertaining to the use of ECMO and Impella for cardiogenic shocks, such as efficacy, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, device-related complications, and limitations. The Impella completely unloads the left ventricle, thereby significantly reducing the effort of the heart. Comparatively, ECMO only stabilizes a patient with cardiogenic shock for a short stretch of time and does not lessen the efforts of the left ventricle ("unload" it). In the acute setting, both devices reduced left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and provided adequate hemodynamic support. By comparing patients on Impella to those receiving ECMO, it was found that patients on Impella were associated with better clinical results, quicker recovery, limited complications, and reduced healthcare costs; however, there is a lack of conclusive studies performed demonstrating the reduction in long-term mortality rates. Considering the effectiveness of given modalities and taking into account the various studies described in the literature, Impella has reported better clinical outcomes although more clinical trials are needed for establishing the effectiveness of these interventional approaches in revascularization in cardiogenic shock. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9898582 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Cureus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98985822023-02-06 Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock Vora, Neel Chaudhary, Rajvi Upadhyay, Hetarth Vivek Konat, Ashwati Zalavadia, Parit Padaniya, Arif Patel, Parth Patel, Nihar Prajjwal, Priyadarshi Sharma, Kamal Cureus Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) procedure aids in the provision of prolonged cardiopulmonary support, whereas the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a ventricular assist device that maintains circulation by pumping blood into the aorta from the left ventricle. Blood is circulated in parallel with the heart by Impella. It draws blood straight into the aorta from the left ventricle, hence preserving the physiological flow. ECMO bypasses the left atrium and the left ventricle, and the end consequence is a non-physiological flow. In this article, we conducted a detailed analysis of various publications in the literature and examined various modalities pertaining to the use of ECMO and Impella for cardiogenic shocks, such as efficacy, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, device-related complications, and limitations. The Impella completely unloads the left ventricle, thereby significantly reducing the effort of the heart. Comparatively, ECMO only stabilizes a patient with cardiogenic shock for a short stretch of time and does not lessen the efforts of the left ventricle ("unload" it). In the acute setting, both devices reduced left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and provided adequate hemodynamic support. By comparing patients on Impella to those receiving ECMO, it was found that patients on Impella were associated with better clinical results, quicker recovery, limited complications, and reduced healthcare costs; however, there is a lack of conclusive studies performed demonstrating the reduction in long-term mortality rates. Considering the effectiveness of given modalities and taking into account the various studies described in the literature, Impella has reported better clinical outcomes although more clinical trials are needed for establishing the effectiveness of these interventional approaches in revascularization in cardiogenic shock. Cureus 2023-01-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9898582/ /pubmed/36751242 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33372 Text en Copyright © 2023, Vora et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery Vora, Neel Chaudhary, Rajvi Upadhyay, Hetarth Vivek Konat, Ashwati Zalavadia, Parit Padaniya, Arif Patel, Parth Patel, Nihar Prajjwal, Priyadarshi Sharma, Kamal Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock |
title | Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_full | Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_fullStr | Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_full_unstemmed | Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_short | Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock |
title_sort | mechanical assist device-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: the use of impella versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as an emerging frontier in revascularization in cardiogenic shock |
topic | Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9898582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36751242 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.33372 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT voraneel mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT chaudharyrajvi mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT upadhyayhetarthvivek mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT konatashwati mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT zalavadiaparit mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT padaniyaarif mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT patelparth mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT patelnihar mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT prajjwalpriyadarshi mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock AT sharmakamal mechanicalassistdeviceassistedpercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontheuseofimpellaversusextracorporealmembraneoxygenationasanemergingfrontierinrevascularizationincardiogenicshock |