File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.21037/atm-20-2171
- PMID: 32793674
- WOS: WOS:000550036800022
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Short-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review
Title | Short-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) Impella extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) TandemHeart (TH) |
Issue Date | 2020 |
Publisher | AME 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? |
Abstract | Cardiogenic 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 Identifier | http://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 Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Wong, ASK | - |
dc.contributor.author | Sin, SWC | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-07-06T03:11:31Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-06T03:11:31Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Annals of Translational Medicine, 2020, v. 8 n. 13, p. article no. 829 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2305-5839 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/300882 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Cardiogenic 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.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | AME Publishing Company. The Journal's web site is located at http://atm.amegroups.com/about | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Annals of Translational Medicine | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) | - |
dc.subject | intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) | - |
dc.subject | Impella | - |
dc.subject | extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) | - |
dc.subject | TandemHeart (TH) | - |
dc.title | Short-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Sin, SWC: drwcsin@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Sin, SWC=rp02682 | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.21037/atm-20-2171 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 32793674 | - |
dc.identifier.pmcid | PMC7396256 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 323232 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 8 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 13 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | article no. 829 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | article no. 829 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000550036800022 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Hong Kong | - |