M. Martínez‐Sellés, Jorge García Carreño, J. Martínez-Solano, I. Sousa, M. Juárez-Fernández
{"title":"西班牙心脏重症监护病房心源性休克及ECMO和Impella应用调查","authors":"M. Martínez‐Sellés, Jorge García Carreño, J. Martínez-Solano, I. Sousa, M. Juárez-Fernández","doi":"10.3390/jvd2030022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Previous studies suggest variability in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to Spanish hospitals. Results: We obtained 50 answers, mainly from cardiologists (36–72%). The annual average of ECMOs is 16.7 ± 11.3 applications in CS patients and of Impellas is 8.7 ± 8.3 applications in CS patients. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is used in the majority of CS ECMOs (31–62%), and Impella is used in 7 (14%). In 36 (72%) cases, ECMO is used as a treatment for cardiac arrest. In 10 cases, ECMO removal is percutaneous (20%). In 25 (50%) cases, age is a relative contraindication; 17 have a mobile ECMO team (34%); and 23 (46%) have received ECMO patients from other centers in the last year. Pre-purged ECMO is only used in 16 (32%). ECMO implantation is carried out under ultrasound guidance in 31 (62%), only with angiography in 3 (6%) and with both in 11 (22%). The Swan–Ganz catheter is used routinely in 8 (16%), only in doubtful cases in 24 (48%), and in most cases in 8 (16%). The ECMO awake strategy is used little or not at all in 28 (56%), in selected cases in 17 (34%), and routinely in 5 (10%). Conclusion: Our study shows a huge variation in the management of patients with CS.","PeriodicalId":74009,"journal":{"name":"Journal of vascular diseases","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survey on Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of ECMO and Impella in Spanish Cardiac Critical Care Units\",\"authors\":\"M. Martínez‐Sellés, Jorge García Carreño, J. Martínez-Solano, I. Sousa, M. Juárez-Fernández\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jvd2030022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Previous studies suggest variability in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to Spanish hospitals. Results: We obtained 50 answers, mainly from cardiologists (36–72%). The annual average of ECMOs is 16.7 ± 11.3 applications in CS patients and of Impellas is 8.7 ± 8.3 applications in CS patients. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is used in the majority of CS ECMOs (31–62%), and Impella is used in 7 (14%). In 36 (72%) cases, ECMO is used as a treatment for cardiac arrest. In 10 cases, ECMO removal is percutaneous (20%). In 25 (50%) cases, age is a relative contraindication; 17 have a mobile ECMO team (34%); and 23 (46%) have received ECMO patients from other centers in the last year. Pre-purged ECMO is only used in 16 (32%). ECMO implantation is carried out under ultrasound guidance in 31 (62%), only with angiography in 3 (6%) and with both in 11 (22%). The Swan–Ganz catheter is used routinely in 8 (16%), only in doubtful cases in 24 (48%), and in most cases in 8 (16%). The ECMO awake strategy is used little or not at all in 28 (56%), in selected cases in 17 (34%), and routinely in 5 (10%). Conclusion: Our study shows a huge variation in the management of patients with CS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74009,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of vascular diseases\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of vascular diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jvd2030022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of vascular diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jvd2030022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Survey on Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of ECMO and Impella in Spanish Cardiac Critical Care Units
Background: Previous studies suggest variability in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: An anonymous survey was sent to Spanish hospitals. Results: We obtained 50 answers, mainly from cardiologists (36–72%). The annual average of ECMOs is 16.7 ± 11.3 applications in CS patients and of Impellas is 8.7 ± 8.3 applications in CS patients. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is used in the majority of CS ECMOs (31–62%), and Impella is used in 7 (14%). In 36 (72%) cases, ECMO is used as a treatment for cardiac arrest. In 10 cases, ECMO removal is percutaneous (20%). In 25 (50%) cases, age is a relative contraindication; 17 have a mobile ECMO team (34%); and 23 (46%) have received ECMO patients from other centers in the last year. Pre-purged ECMO is only used in 16 (32%). ECMO implantation is carried out under ultrasound guidance in 31 (62%), only with angiography in 3 (6%) and with both in 11 (22%). The Swan–Ganz catheter is used routinely in 8 (16%), only in doubtful cases in 24 (48%), and in most cases in 8 (16%). The ECMO awake strategy is used little or not at all in 28 (56%), in selected cases in 17 (34%), and routinely in 5 (10%). Conclusion: Our study shows a huge variation in the management of patients with CS.