4.3 Article

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support from the collaborative multicenter Mechanical Unusual Support in TAVI (MUST) Registry

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29747

关键词

MUST; outcome; percutaneous mechanical support; TAVI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that prophylactic or rescue use of pMCS during high-risk TAVI procedures can improve clinical outcomes. Despite higher mortality rates, pMCS-related complications were infrequent, supporting the use of pMCS in high-risk cases or in acute life-threatening situations during TAVI.
Objectives To evaluate the use and outcomes of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) utilized during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) from high-volume centers. Methods and results Our international multicenter registry including 13 high-volume TAVI centers with 87 patients (76.5 +/- 11.8 years, 63.2% men) who underwent TAVI for severe aortic stenosis and required pMCS (75.9% VA-ECMO, 19.5% Impella CP, 4.6% TandemHeart) during the procedure (prior to TAVI 39.1%, emergent rescue 50.6%, following TAVI 10.3%). The procedures were considered high-risk, with 50.6% having severe left ventricular dysfunction, 24.1% biventricular dysfunction, and 32.2% severe pulmonary hypertension. In-hospital and 1-year mortality were 27.5% and 49.4%, respectively. Patients with prophylactic hemodynamic support had lower periprocedural mortality compared to patients with rescue insertion of pMCS (log rank = 0.013) and patients who did not undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the TAVI procedure had better short and long term survival (log rank <0.001 and 0.015, respectively). Conclusions Given the overall survival rate and low frequency of pMCS-related complications, our study results support the use of pMCS prophylactically or during the course of TAVI (bailout) in order to improve clinical outcomes in high-risk procedures or in case of acute life-threatening hemodynamic collapse.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据