File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Short-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review

TitleShort-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review
Authors
KeywordsMechanical circulatory support (MCS)
intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)
Impella
extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)
TandemHeart (TH)
Issue Date2020
PublisherAME Publishing Company. The Journal's web site is located at http://atm.amegroups.com/about
Citation
Annals of Translational Medicine, 2020, v. 8 n. 13, p. article no. 829 How to Cite?
AbstractCardiogenic shock remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction and advanced heart failure. Intra-aortic balloon pump has been the most widely used short-term mechanical circulatory support device to rapidly stabilize hemodynamics. However, it provides modest support, current evidence does not show a decrease in mortality, and the latest guidelines no longer recommend its routine use. Several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been introduced into clinical practice (Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygen, TandemHeart), providing a greater level of hemodynamic support. These resource-intensive devices demand a careful selection of patients that stand to benefit the most. Premature initiation of mechanical circulatory support exposes the patient to unnecessary risk, whereas delaying therapy leads to irreversible end-organ injury, rendering any intervention medically futile. Cannulation methods, pump designs, and circuit configurations differ between devices, as do the adverse effects and physiological impact on the myocardium, which needs to be factored into consideration before deployment on the patient in cardiogenic shock. This article will review the commonly used percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in the setting of cardiogenic shock, compare their advantages and disadvantages, evaluate key clinical trials, and discuss a practical approach to guide clinicians’ decision and management.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/300882
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 3.616
2019 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.089
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, ASK-
dc.contributor.authorSin, SWC-
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-06T03:11:31Z-
dc.date.available2021-07-06T03:11:31Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Translational Medicine, 2020, v. 8 n. 13, p. article no. 829-
dc.identifier.issn2305-5839-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/300882-
dc.description.abstractCardiogenic shock remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction and advanced heart failure. Intra-aortic balloon pump has been the most widely used short-term mechanical circulatory support device to rapidly stabilize hemodynamics. However, it provides modest support, current evidence does not show a decrease in mortality, and the latest guidelines no longer recommend its routine use. Several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been introduced into clinical practice (Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygen, TandemHeart), providing a greater level of hemodynamic support. These resource-intensive devices demand a careful selection of patients that stand to benefit the most. Premature initiation of mechanical circulatory support exposes the patient to unnecessary risk, whereas delaying therapy leads to irreversible end-organ injury, rendering any intervention medically futile. Cannulation methods, pump designs, and circuit configurations differ between devices, as do the adverse effects and physiological impact on the myocardium, which needs to be factored into consideration before deployment on the patient in cardiogenic shock. This article will review the commonly used percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in the setting of cardiogenic shock, compare their advantages and disadvantages, evaluate key clinical trials, and discuss a practical approach to guide clinicians’ decision and management.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherAME Publishing Company. The Journal's web site is located at http://atm.amegroups.com/about-
dc.relation.ispartofAnnals of Translational Medicine-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectMechanical circulatory support (MCS)-
dc.subjectintra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)-
dc.subjectImpella-
dc.subjectextracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-
dc.subjectTandemHeart (TH)-
dc.titleShort-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailSin, SWC: drwcsin@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authoritySin, SWC=rp02682-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.21037/atm-20-2171-
dc.identifier.pmid32793674-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC7396256-
dc.identifier.hkuros323232-
dc.identifier.volume8-
dc.identifier.issue13-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 829-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 829-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000550036800022-
dc.publisher.placeHong Kong-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats