4.5 Article

Axillary transvalvular microaxial pump as extended bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement in cardiogenic shock with severe aortic stenosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 434-437

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2021.12.010

关键词

cardiogenic shock; aortic stenosis; mechanical circulatory support; transcatheter aortic valve replacement; congestive heart failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study describes five patients with cardiogenic shock and severe aortic stenosis who received support from an axillary microaxial pump, allowing them to undergo successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The use of the pump prior to the procedure enabled stabilization, evaluation by a heart team, and additional interventions, resulting in successful outcomes.
Cardiogenic shock in the setting of severe aortic stenosis is associated with poor outcomes.& nbsp;We describe 5 patients with cardiogenic shock and severe aortic stenosis who received an axillary microaxial pump (Impella) as an extended bridge to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The median (range) age was 65 (61-87) years old, 80% were male, and 80% presented with stage D or E cardiogenic shock. In most cases, balloon aortic valvuloplasty was performed prior to pump insertion. Stabilization by Impella allowed for heart team evaluation and additional interventions, including percutaneous coronary intervention, MitraClip, and cardioversion. After a median (range) of 7 (5-14) days of Impella support, semi-elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement was successfully performed. All patients survived to discharge. Four patients (80%) were alive beyond 1 year. In these high-risk patients, prolonged support with a microaxial pump allowed for stabilization, ancillary interventions, and multi-disciplinary heart team evaluation prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement.& nbsp;(C) 2022 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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