4.3 Review

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN CRITICAL CARE
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages 521-527

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282efd5bc

Keywords

cardiogenic shock; congestive heart failure; intraaortic balloon pump; left ventricular assist device

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review This review will discuss the rationale and clinical utility of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock Recent findings Left ventricular assist devices maintain partial or total circulatory support in case of severe left ventricular failure. Currently, two percutaneous left ventricular assist devices are available for clinical use: the TandemHeart and the Impella Recover LP system. Compared with the intraaortic balloon pump, the TandemHeart has been shown to significantly reduce preload and to augment cardiac output. In a randomized comparison between the TandemHeart and intraaortic balloon pump support in patients with cardiogenic shock, the improved cardiac index afforded by the left ventricular assist device resulted in a more rapid decrease in serum lactate and improved renal function, There were, however, no significant differences with respect to 30-day mortality, and complications including limb ischemia and severe bleeding were more frequent with left ventricular assist devices than intraaortic balloon pump support. Summary The advent of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices constitutes an important advance in the management of patients with severe cardiogenic shock and may serve as bridge to recovery or heart transplantation in carefully selected patients. While improvement of hemodynamic parameters appears promising, it remains to be determined whether this benefit translates into improved clinical outcome.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available