Temporary left ventricular assist device through an axillary access is a promising approach to improve outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock patients
- PMID: 25923576
- PMCID: PMC4451832
- DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000222
Temporary left ventricular assist device through an axillary access is a promising approach to improve outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock patients
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) causes significant morbidity and mortality and such patients can deteriorate rapidly. Temporary left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are a promising approach to manage these patients. The following is a case series in which patients stabilized with a temporary LVAD for CS improvement were analyzed retrospectively. Between June 2011 and January 2014, 15 patients received temporary devices through an axillary approach (mean age: 53 ± 15, 93% male). Mean survival time was 317.8 ± 359.5 days (range: 6-936 days). During support there were no major bleeding events, infectious complications at the axillary access site, upper extremity edema, or emboli. The most of the patients recovered from CS (93%) were mobilized (67%) and were extubated (73%) while on temporary device support. Median times to extubation, intensive care unit discharge, and discontinuation of inotropic medications were: 1.63, 18, and 15 days, respectively. Four patients recovered to no device support and five received a long-term LVAD, all of whom remain alive. Therefore, implantation of a temporary LVAD through an axillary approach is a promising therapy for improving outcomes in patients needing mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to recovery or a definitive LVAD.
Figures
Comment in
-
Mechanical bridge to long-term device implant: the necessary step for better outcomes.ASAIO J. 2015 May-Jun;61(3):225-6. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000235. ASAIO J. 2015. PMID: 25914949 No abstract available.
References
-
- Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, et al. Fifth INTERMACS annual report: Risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:141–156. - PubMed
-
- Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, Idelchik GM, Loyalka P. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:688–696. - PubMed
-
- Takayama H, Truby L, Koekort M, et al. Clinical outcome of mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock in the current era. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:106–111. - PubMed
-
- Pauly DF. Managing acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiol Clin. 2014;32:145–9. ix. - PubMed
-
- Chamogeorgakis T, Rafael A, Shafii AE, et al. Which is better: A miniaturized percutaneous ventricular assist device or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock? ASAIO J. 2013;59:607–611. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
