Defining early right ventricular failure during left ventricular assist device implantation: Retrospective analysis of intraoperative management

M. Simsek
{"title":"Defining early right ventricular failure during left ventricular assist device implantation: Retrospective analysis of intraoperative management","authors":"M. Simsek","doi":"10.5606/e-cvsi.2022.1349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: In this study, we aimed to share the intraoperative anesthesia management of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and our approach to right ventricular failure (RVF) that developed in this process, and our results. Patients and methods: A total of 82 patients (71 males, 11 females; mean age: 49.4±9.4 years; range, 18 to 71 years) who underwent LVAD implantation between February 2013 and June 2020 were included in the retrospective study. Preoperative echocardiography, cardiac catheterization findings, and intraoperative records were reviewed. In light of the preoperative hemodynamic, echocardiographic, and preoperative echocardiographic findings of the patients, RVF levels were preoperatively determined, and a medical and mechanical support therapy algorithm for RVF was created. The postoperative outcomes were evaluated within the framework of this algorithm. Results: The mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 19.6%, and the mean right ventricular ejection fraction was 37.4%. According to our algorithm, eight (9.7%) patients developed severe, 12 (14.6%) moderate, and 48 (58.5%) mild RVF. No RVF was present in 14 (17.2%) patients. The vasoactive inotrope score was 25.7±1.3 in the advanced RVF group and compatible with the severity of RVF. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was required in three (37.5%) patients who had severe RVF. Right ventricular assist device was implanted in one of the three patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation due to advanced RVF in the postoperative period. Mortality was observed in two (25%) patients in the advanced group, one (8.3%) in the moderate, three (6.25%) in the mild, and two (14%) in the normal RVF group. Conclusion: A standardized method for defining the RVF severity and a well-defined treatment protocol according to its degree of severity is lacking. Considering hemodynamic and echocardiographic data, grading of RVF in patients is vital for determining the treatment protocol. Treatment for RVF should be converted into standard universal algorithms.","PeriodicalId":229686,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Surgery and Interventions","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Surgery and Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5606/e-cvsi.2022.1349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to share the intraoperative anesthesia management of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and our approach to right ventricular failure (RVF) that developed in this process, and our results. Patients and methods: A total of 82 patients (71 males, 11 females; mean age: 49.4±9.4 years; range, 18 to 71 years) who underwent LVAD implantation between February 2013 and June 2020 were included in the retrospective study. Preoperative echocardiography, cardiac catheterization findings, and intraoperative records were reviewed. In light of the preoperative hemodynamic, echocardiographic, and preoperative echocardiographic findings of the patients, RVF levels were preoperatively determined, and a medical and mechanical support therapy algorithm for RVF was created. The postoperative outcomes were evaluated within the framework of this algorithm. Results: The mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 19.6%, and the mean right ventricular ejection fraction was 37.4%. According to our algorithm, eight (9.7%) patients developed severe, 12 (14.6%) moderate, and 48 (58.5%) mild RVF. No RVF was present in 14 (17.2%) patients. The vasoactive inotrope score was 25.7±1.3 in the advanced RVF group and compatible with the severity of RVF. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was required in three (37.5%) patients who had severe RVF. Right ventricular assist device was implanted in one of the three patients with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation due to advanced RVF in the postoperative period. Mortality was observed in two (25%) patients in the advanced group, one (8.3%) in the moderate, three (6.25%) in the mild, and two (14%) in the normal RVF group. Conclusion: A standardized method for defining the RVF severity and a well-defined treatment protocol according to its degree of severity is lacking. Considering hemodynamic and echocardiographic data, grading of RVF in patients is vital for determining the treatment protocol. Treatment for RVF should be converted into standard universal algorithms.
左室辅助装置植入过程中早期右心衰竭的定义:术中处理的回顾性分析
目的:在本研究中,我们旨在分享左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入术中麻醉管理,以及我们在此过程中出现的右心室衰竭(RVF)的处理方法和我们的结果。患者与方法:共82例患者,其中男性71例,女性11例;平均年龄49.4±9.4岁;在2013年2月至2020年6月期间接受LVAD植入的18至71岁的患者被纳入回顾性研究。回顾术前超声心动图、心导管检查结果和术中记录。根据患者术前血流动力学、超声心动图及术前超声心动图检查结果,术前确定裂谷热水平,并建立裂谷热的医学和机械支持治疗算法。在该算法的框架内评估术后结果。结果:术前左室射血分数平均值为19.6%,右室射血分数平均值为37.4%。根据我们的算法,8例(9.7%)患者发展为重度裂谷热,12例(14.6%)为中度裂谷热,48例(58.5%)为轻度裂谷热。14例(17.2%)患者未出现裂谷热。晚期裂谷热组血管活性肌力评分为25.7±1.3,与裂谷热严重程度相符。3例(37.5%)严重裂谷热患者需要体外膜氧合。术后3例因裂谷热晚期行体外膜氧合的患者中,1例植入右室辅助装置。晚期裂谷热组有2例(25%)患者死亡,中度裂谷热组1例(8.3%),轻度裂谷热组3例(6.25%),正常裂谷热组2例(14%)。结论:目前缺乏一种标准化的方法来确定裂谷热的严重程度,并根据其严重程度制定明确的治疗方案。考虑到血流动力学和超声心动图数据,裂谷热患者的分级对于确定治疗方案至关重要。裂谷热的治疗应转化为标准的通用算法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信