Haemodynamic support with percutaneous devices in patients with cardiogenic shock: the current evidence of mechanical circulatory support.

Fatima Kayali, Tiffany Agbobu, Thurkga Moothathamby, Yousif F Jubouri, Matti Jubouri, Amr Abdelhaliem, Samuel N S Ghattas, Samuel S S Rezk, Damian M Bailey, Ian M Williams, Wael I Awad, Mohamad Bashir
{"title":"Haemodynamic support with percutaneous devices in patients with cardiogenic shock: the current evidence of mechanical circulatory support.","authors":"Fatima Kayali, Tiffany Agbobu, Thurkga Moothathamby, Yousif F Jubouri, Matti Jubouri, Amr Abdelhaliem, Samuel N S Ghattas, Samuel S S Rezk, Damian M Bailey, Ian M Williams, Wael I Awad, Mohamad Bashir","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2024.2380330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex life-threatening condition that results from primary cardiac dysfunction, leading to persistent hypotension and systemic hypoperfusion. Among the therapeutic options for CS are various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that have emerged as an increasingly effective hemodynamic support option. Percutaneous therapies can act as short-term mechanical circulatory assistance and can be split into intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and non-IABP percutaneous mechanical devices.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>This review will evaluate the MCS value while considering the mortality rate improvements. We also aim to outline the function of pharmacotherapies and percutaneous hemodynamic MCS devices in managing CS patients to avoid the onset of end-organ dysfunction and improve both early and late outcomes.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Given the complexity, acuity and high mortality associated with CS, and despite the availability and efficacy of pharmacological management, MCS is required to achieve hemodynamic stability and improve survival. Various percutaneous MCS devices are available with varying indications and clinical outcomes. The rates of early mortality and complications were found to be comparable between the four devices, yet, IABP seemed to show the most optimal clinical profile whilst ECMO demonstrated its more long-term efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2024.2380330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex life-threatening condition that results from primary cardiac dysfunction, leading to persistent hypotension and systemic hypoperfusion. Among the therapeutic options for CS are various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that have emerged as an increasingly effective hemodynamic support option. Percutaneous therapies can act as short-term mechanical circulatory assistance and can be split into intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and non-IABP percutaneous mechanical devices.

Areas covered: This review will evaluate the MCS value while considering the mortality rate improvements. We also aim to outline the function of pharmacotherapies and percutaneous hemodynamic MCS devices in managing CS patients to avoid the onset of end-organ dysfunction and improve both early and late outcomes.

Expert opinion: Given the complexity, acuity and high mortality associated with CS, and despite the availability and efficacy of pharmacological management, MCS is required to achieve hemodynamic stability and improve survival. Various percutaneous MCS devices are available with varying indications and clinical outcomes. The rates of early mortality and complications were found to be comparable between the four devices, yet, IABP seemed to show the most optimal clinical profile whilst ECMO demonstrated its more long-term efficacy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心源性休克患者经皮装置的血液动力学支持:机械循环支持的现有证据。
简介心源性休克(CS)是一种复杂的危及生命的疾病,由原发性心脏功能障碍引起,导致持续性低血压和全身灌注不足。在 CS 的治疗方案中,各种经皮机械循环支持(MCS)设备已成为一种日益有效的血液动力学支持方案。经皮疗法可作为短期机械循环辅助,可分为主动脉内球囊反搏泵(IABP)和非 IABP 经皮机械装置:本综述将评估 MCS 的价值,同时考虑死亡率的改善。我们还将概述药物疗法和经皮血液动力学 MCS 设备在管理 CS 患者方面的功能,以避免出现终末器官功能障碍并改善早期和晚期预后:专家意见:鉴于 CS 的复杂性、严重性和高死亡率,尽管药物治疗可用且有效,但仍需要 MCS 来实现血液动力学稳定并提高存活率。目前有多种经皮 MCS 装置,其适应症和临床效果各不相同。研究发现,四种装置的早期死亡率和并发症发生率相当,但 IABP 似乎显示出最理想的临床效果,而 ECMO 则显示出更长期的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Utilization of preoperative EOS imaging to prevent adverse events following total hip arthroplasty. Modular cardiac rhythm management system and results of MODULAR ATP trial: an era of personalized device medicine. Ultra high-frequency ultrasound in lymphatic surgery: the next frontier. Vascular changes in optical coherence tomography angiography unveiling the depths of dry age-related macular degeneration: a review. Breaking the ice through an effective translationality in neurorehabilitation: are we heading to the right direction?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1