• Something wrong with this record ?

Beyond one-size-fits-all in cardiogenic shock: impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or tailored use of mechanical circulatory support

D. Rob, J. Belohlavek

. 2024 ; 30 (4) : 371-378. [pub] 20240610

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article, Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article offers an overview of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in treating cardiogenic shock, including findings from the DanGer shock trial. It summarizes the clinical implications and limitations of these studies and key decision-making considerations for cardiogenic shock device use. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite important limitations in all published RCTs, the routine use of VA ECMO for acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock did not demonstrate benefit and should be reserved for selected patients with extreme forms of cardiogenic shock. Conversely, mAFP (Impella CP) appears promising for cardiogenic shock due to ST elevation myocardial infarction. A stepwise approach - initial mAFP use for cardiogenic shock with left ventricular failure, supplemented by VA ECMO if mAFP is inadequate or if severe right ventricular failure is present - may be preferable, but requires validation through RCTs. High complication rates in device arms underscore the need for careful patient selection, preventive strategies, education for centers and operators, and further research. SUMMARY: Recent trials offer insights into mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock, but their real-world applicability is limited. Despite potential benefits, the use of VA ECMO and mAFP is associated with significant complication rates, emphasizing the need for personalized use.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24019535
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20241024110805.0
007      
ta
008      
241015s2024 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/MCC.0000000000001165 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38872369
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Rob, Daniel $u 2 Department of Medicine - Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Beyond one-size-fits-all in cardiogenic shock: impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or tailored use of mechanical circulatory support / $c D. Rob, J. Belohlavek
520    9_
$a PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article offers an overview of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and microaxial flow pump (mAFP) in treating cardiogenic shock, including findings from the DanGer shock trial. It summarizes the clinical implications and limitations of these studies and key decision-making considerations for cardiogenic shock device use. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite important limitations in all published RCTs, the routine use of VA ECMO for acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock did not demonstrate benefit and should be reserved for selected patients with extreme forms of cardiogenic shock. Conversely, mAFP (Impella CP) appears promising for cardiogenic shock due to ST elevation myocardial infarction. A stepwise approach - initial mAFP use for cardiogenic shock with left ventricular failure, supplemented by VA ECMO if mAFP is inadequate or if severe right ventricular failure is present - may be preferable, but requires validation through RCTs. High complication rates in device arms underscore the need for careful patient selection, preventive strategies, education for centers and operators, and further research. SUMMARY: Recent trials offer insights into mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock, but their real-world applicability is limited. Despite potential benefits, the use of VA ECMO and mAFP is associated with significant complication rates, emphasizing the need for personalized use.
650    12
$a kardiogenní šok $x terapie $7 D012770
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a mimotělní membránová oxygenace $x metody $7 D015199
650    12
$a podpůrné srdeční systémy $7 D006353
650    12
$a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
650    _2
$a výběr pacientů $7 D018579
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Belohlavek, Jan
773    0_
$w MED00001280 $t Current opinion in critical care $x 1531-7072 $g Roč. 30, č. 4 (2024), s. 371-378
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38872369 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20241015 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20241024110759 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2202018 $s 1231508
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 30 $c 4 $d 371-378 $e 20240610 $i 1531-7072 $m Current opinion in critical care $n Curr Opin Crit Care $x MED00001280
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20241015

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...