4.7 Review

Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Heart Transplant-Change of Paradigm

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237101

关键词

extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; heart transplantation; heart failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heart transplant remains the gold standard therapy for end-stage heart failure, but using ECMO as a bridge to transplant may be a solution for critically ill patients. However, further research is needed to determine the superiority of direct bridging compared to bridging to durable MCS.
Despite advances in medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support (MCS), heart transplant (HT) remains the gold standard therapy for end-stage heart failure. Patients in cardiogenic shock require prompt intervention to reverse hypoperfusion and end-organ damage. When medical therapy becomes insufficient, MCS should be considered. Historically, it has been reported that critically ill patients bridged with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) directly to HT have worse outcomes. However, when the heart allocation system gives the highest priority to patients on VA-ECMO support, those patients have a higher incidence of HT and a lower incidence of death or removal from the transplant list. Moreover, patients with a short waiting time on VA-ECMO have a similar hazard of mortality to non-ECMO patients. According to the reported data, bridging with VA-ECMO directly to HT may be a solution in the selection of critically ill patients when the anticipated waiting list time is short. However, when a prolonged waiting time is expected, more durable MCS should be considered. Regardless of the favorable results of the direct bridging to HT with ECMO in selected patients, the superiority of this strategy compared to the bridge-to-bridge strategy (ECMO to durable MCS) has not been established and further studies are mandatory in order to clarify this issue.

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

4.7
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