心源性休克中静脉体外膜氧合的应用:综述。

European heart journal open Pub Date : 2024-06-16 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjopen/oeae051
Tara Gédéon, Tetiana Zolotarova, Mark J Eisenberg
{"title":"心源性休克中静脉体外膜氧合的应用:综述。","authors":"Tara Gédéon, Tetiana Zolotarova, Mark J Eisenberg","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oeae051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) develops in up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and carries a 50% risk of mortality. Despite the paucity of evidence regarding its benefits, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in clinical practice in patients with AMI in CS (AMI-CS). This review aims to provide an in-depth description of the four available randomized controlled trials to date designed to evaluate the benefit of VA-ECMO in patients with AMI-CS.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify the four relevant randomized control trials from years of inception to October 2023. Despite differences in patient selection, nuances in trial conduction, and variability in trial endpoints, all four trials (ECLS-SHOCK I, ECMO-CS, EUROSHOCK, and ECLS-SHOCK) failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with the use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, with high rates of device-related complications. However, the outcome of these trials is nuanced by the limitations of each study that include small sample sizes, challenging patient selection, and high cross-over rates to the intervention group, and lack of use of left ventricular unloading strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The presented literature of VA-ECMO in CS does not support its routine use in clinical practice. We have yet to identify which subset of patients would benefit most from this intervention. This review emphasizes the need for designing adequately powered trials to properly assess the role of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, in order to build evidence for best practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":93995,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal open","volume":"4 4","pages":"oeae051"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11227219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review.\",\"authors\":\"Tara Gédéon, Tetiana Zolotarova, Mark J Eisenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjopen/oeae051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) develops in up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and carries a 50% risk of mortality. Despite the paucity of evidence regarding its benefits, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in clinical practice in patients with AMI in CS (AMI-CS). This review aims to provide an in-depth description of the four available randomized controlled trials to date designed to evaluate the benefit of VA-ECMO in patients with AMI-CS.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify the four relevant randomized control trials from years of inception to October 2023. Despite differences in patient selection, nuances in trial conduction, and variability in trial endpoints, all four trials (ECLS-SHOCK I, ECMO-CS, EUROSHOCK, and ECLS-SHOCK) failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with the use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, with high rates of device-related complications. However, the outcome of these trials is nuanced by the limitations of each study that include small sample sizes, challenging patient selection, and high cross-over rates to the intervention group, and lack of use of left ventricular unloading strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The presented literature of VA-ECMO in CS does not support its routine use in clinical practice. We have yet to identify which subset of patients would benefit most from this intervention. This review emphasizes the need for designing adequately powered trials to properly assess the role of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, in order to build evidence for best practices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European heart journal open\",\"volume\":\"4 4\",\"pages\":\"oeae051\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11227219/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European heart journal open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeae051\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeae051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:多达 10% 的急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者会出现心源性休克(CS),死亡率高达 50%。尽管有关其益处的证据很少,但静脉体外膜肺氧合(VA-ECMO)越来越多地用于急性心肌梗死(AMI)CS(AMI-CS)患者的临床实践中。本综述旨在深入介绍迄今为止旨在评估 VA-ECMO 对 AMI-CS 患者益处的四项随机对照试验:在PubMed、Google Scholar和clinicaltrials.gov上进行了文献检索,以确定从开始到2023年10月的四项相关随机对照试验。尽管在患者选择、试验进行的细微差别以及试验终点方面存在差异,但所有四项试验(ECLS-SHOCK I、ECMO-CS、EUROSHOCK 和 ECLS-SHOCK)均未能证明在 AMI-CS 中使用 VA-ECMO 有助于降低死亡率,而且与设备相关的并发症发生率较高。然而,这些试验的结果因各项研究的局限性而存在细微差别,这些局限性包括样本量小、患者选择具有挑战性、干预组交叉率高以及未使用左心室减压策略:结论:目前关于 CS 中 VA-ECMO 的文献并不支持其在临床实践中的常规应用。我们尚未确定哪一部分患者能从这种干预中获益最多。本综述强调有必要设计有充分支持的试验,以正确评估 VA-ECMO 在 AMI-CS 中的作用,从而为最佳实践提供证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review.

Aims: Cardiogenic shock (CS) develops in up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and carries a 50% risk of mortality. Despite the paucity of evidence regarding its benefits, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in clinical practice in patients with AMI in CS (AMI-CS). This review aims to provide an in-depth description of the four available randomized controlled trials to date designed to evaluate the benefit of VA-ECMO in patients with AMI-CS.

Methods and results: The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify the four relevant randomized control trials from years of inception to October 2023. Despite differences in patient selection, nuances in trial conduction, and variability in trial endpoints, all four trials (ECLS-SHOCK I, ECMO-CS, EUROSHOCK, and ECLS-SHOCK) failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with the use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, with high rates of device-related complications. However, the outcome of these trials is nuanced by the limitations of each study that include small sample sizes, challenging patient selection, and high cross-over rates to the intervention group, and lack of use of left ventricular unloading strategies.

Conclusion: The presented literature of VA-ECMO in CS does not support its routine use in clinical practice. We have yet to identify which subset of patients would benefit most from this intervention. This review emphasizes the need for designing adequately powered trials to properly assess the role of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, in order to build evidence for best practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The acute effect of high-dose supplemental oxygen on haemodynamics assessed by echocardiography in patients with pulmonary vascular disease living in Quito at 2850 m: a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. Percutaneous thrombectomy with the FlowTriever for pulmonary embolism with right heart thrombi: a retrospective two centres study. Single high-sensitivity troponin-I for ruling out acute coronary syndrome: a detection limit approach. Beyond the heart: multisystem complications fuelling cardiac dysfunction in myotonic dystrophy type 1. Implementing and evaluating shared decision-making before transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a dedicated pathway and questionnaire.
×
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