Personalizing Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: A Review and Comparison of Current Devices.

Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions Pub Date : 2025-06-22 DOI:10.1002/ccd.31698

Bradley Fujiuchi, Kevin Benavente, Hafeez Ul Hassan Virk, Mahboob Alam, Jacob C Jentzer, Ryan J Tedford, Sean Van Diepen, Chayakrit Krittanawong

{"title":"Personalizing Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: A Review and Comparison of Current Devices.","authors":"Bradley Fujiuchi, Kevin Benavente, Hafeez Ul Hassan Virk, Mahboob Alam, Jacob C Jentzer, Ryan J Tedford, Sean Van Diepen, Chayakrit Krittanawong","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high morbidity and mortality condition worldwide frequently complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and decompensated heart failure (HF). Within the management of CS, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices play a critical role in maintaining hemodynamic stability, preserving end-organ perfusion and bridging patients through to recovery, implantation of durable support or transplantation. Despite their use, optimal timing of initiation, as well as patient and device selection remain unclear. This review explores the current landscape of MCS devices, surrounding evidence and key distinctions between devices. With increasing acknowledgment for the heterogeneity of CS, understanding the strengths and limitations of each device remains crucial to improving outcomes in this high-risk population.</p>","PeriodicalId":520583,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31698","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

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high morbidity and mortality condition worldwide frequently complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and decompensated heart failure (HF). Within the management of CS, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices play a critical role in maintaining hemodynamic stability, preserving end-organ perfusion and bridging patients through to recovery, implantation of durable support or transplantation. Despite their use, optimal timing of initiation, as well as patient and device selection remain unclear. This review explores the current landscape of MCS devices, surrounding evidence and key distinctions between devices. With increasing acknowledgment for the heterogeneity of CS, understanding the strengths and limitations of each device remains crucial to improving outcomes in this high-risk population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

心源性休克的个性化机械循环支持：当前设备的回顾和比较。

心源性休克（CS）在世界范围内仍然是一种高发病率和死亡率的疾病，经常并发急性心肌梗死（AMI）和失代偿性心力衰竭（HF）。在CS的管理中，机械循环支持（MCS）装置在维持血流动力学稳定性、保持终末器官灌注和架桥患者直至康复、植入持久支持或移植方面发挥着关键作用。尽管使用了它们，但起始的最佳时机，以及患者和设备的选择仍不清楚。这篇综述探讨了MCS设备的现状，周围的证据和设备之间的关键区别。随着人们越来越认识到CS的异质性，了解每种设备的优势和局限性对于改善高危人群的预后仍然至关重要。

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

Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions

自引率

0.00%

发文量