-
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
Language English Country United States
Document type Journal Article, Review
- MeSH
- Shock, Cardiogenic * therapy MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation * methods MeSH
- Heart-Assist Devices * MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic * MeSH
- Patient Selection MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
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