左心室辅助装置置入术后右心室衰竭患者机械支持经皮插管与开放插管的比较

Amit Prasad, Anthony Kronfli, Nadia Assiaoui, Christoph Brehm, B. Soleimani
{"title":"左心室辅助装置置入术后右心室衰竭患者机械支持经皮插管与开放插管的比较","authors":"Amit Prasad, Anthony Kronfli, Nadia Assiaoui, Christoph Brehm, B. Soleimani","doi":"10.37349/ec.2024.00029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Temporary right ventricular assist device (t-RVAD) is an option for those patients in right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) resistant to ionotropic therapy. There are two options to placing a t-RVAD: an open, central technique or a percutaneous placement with Protek Duo® cannula.\nMethods: We compare these two t-RVAD devices that treat RVF after LVAD placement. Between 2013–2019, 22 patients were identified needing t-RVAD support after LVAD placement. Fourteen patients had open/central while 8 patients had percutaneous right ventricular assist device (RVAD) support.\nResults: There was no difference in length of ICU stay (49 ± 32 days Protek Duo® vs. 45 ± 22 days “open”; P = 0.73); hospital length of stay (57 ± 39 days vs. 55 ± 28 days; P = 0.088); discharge from ICU and hospital (62.1% Protek Duo® vs. 57% for “open”; P = 0.9 for both); or the one-year survival between the two groups (62% Protek Duo® vs. 50% “open”; P = 0.67). The Protek Duo® group had less total time on the ventilator (15 ± 9 days vs. 27 ± 17 days; P = 0.044) and required less amount of blood products (17 ± 8.9 units RBC and 2.0 ± 1.91 units FFP vs. 31 ± 20.5 units RBC and 11.5 ± 10 units FFP; P = 0.046 and P = 0.005).\nConclusions: Percutaneous t-RVAD support is a viable option for patients whom undergo LVAD placement and require right ventricular mechanical support.","PeriodicalId":218206,"journal":{"name":"Exploration of Cardiology","volume":" 28","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous versus open cannulation for mechanical support in patients with right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device placement\",\"authors\":\"Amit Prasad, Anthony Kronfli, Nadia Assiaoui, Christoph Brehm, B. Soleimani\",\"doi\":\"10.37349/ec.2024.00029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: Temporary right ventricular assist device (t-RVAD) is an option for those patients in right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) resistant to ionotropic therapy. There are two options to placing a t-RVAD: an open, central technique or a percutaneous placement with Protek Duo® cannula.\\nMethods: We compare these two t-RVAD devices that treat RVF after LVAD placement. Between 2013–2019, 22 patients were identified needing t-RVAD support after LVAD placement. Fourteen patients had open/central while 8 patients had percutaneous right ventricular assist device (RVAD) support.\\nResults: There was no difference in length of ICU stay (49 ± 32 days Protek Duo® vs. 45 ± 22 days “open”; P = 0.73); hospital length of stay (57 ± 39 days vs. 55 ± 28 days; P = 0.088); discharge from ICU and hospital (62.1% Protek Duo® vs. 57% for “open”; P = 0.9 for both); or the one-year survival between the two groups (62% Protek Duo® vs. 50% “open”; P = 0.67). The Protek Duo® group had less total time on the ventilator (15 ± 9 days vs. 27 ± 17 days; P = 0.044) and required less amount of blood products (17 ± 8.9 units RBC and 2.0 ± 1.91 units FFP vs. 31 ± 20.5 units RBC and 11.5 ± 10 units FFP; P = 0.046 and P = 0.005).\\nConclusions: Percutaneous t-RVAD support is a viable option for patients whom undergo LVAD placement and require right ventricular mechanical support.\",\"PeriodicalId\":218206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Exploration of Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" 28\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Exploration of Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37349/ec.2024.00029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Exploration of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37349/ec.2024.00029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:临时右心室辅助装置(t-RVAD)是那些使用左心室辅助装置(LVAD)后出现右心室衰竭(RVF)并对离子治疗耐药的患者的一种选择。安置 t-RVAD 有两种选择:开放式中心技术或使用 Protek Duo® 插管经皮安置:我们比较了这两种治疗置入 LVAD 后 RVF 的 t-RVAD 装置。2013-2019 年间,共发现 22 名患者在置入 LVAD 后需要 t-RVAD 支持。14名患者采用开放式/中心式,8名患者采用经皮右心室辅助装置(RVAD)支持:两组患者的重症监护室住院时间(Protek Duo® 组为 49 ± 32 天,"开放式 "组为 45 ± 22 天;P = 0.73)、住院时间(Protek Duo® 组为 57 ± 39 天,"开放式 "组为 55 ± 28 天;P = 0.088)、重症监护室出院率和出院率(Protek Duo® 组为 62.1%,"开放式 "组为 57%;P = 0.9)以及一年存活率(Protek Duo® 组为 62%,"开放式 "组为 50%;P = 0.67)均无差异。Protek Duo® 组使用呼吸机的总时间较短(15 ± 9 天 vs. 27 ± 17 天;P = 0.044),所需的血液制品也较少(17 ± 8.9 个单位的 RBC 和 2.0 ± 1.91 个单位的 FFP vs. 31 ± 20.5 个单位的 RBC 和 11.5 ± 10 个单位的 FFP;P = 0.046 和 P = 0.005):结论:对于接受 LVAD 置入术并需要右心室机械支持的患者来说,经皮 t-RVAD 支持是一种可行的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous versus open cannulation for mechanical support in patients with right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device placement
Aim: Temporary right ventricular assist device (t-RVAD) is an option for those patients in right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) resistant to ionotropic therapy. There are two options to placing a t-RVAD: an open, central technique or a percutaneous placement with Protek Duo® cannula. Methods: We compare these two t-RVAD devices that treat RVF after LVAD placement. Between 2013–2019, 22 patients were identified needing t-RVAD support after LVAD placement. Fourteen patients had open/central while 8 patients had percutaneous right ventricular assist device (RVAD) support. Results: There was no difference in length of ICU stay (49 ± 32 days Protek Duo® vs. 45 ± 22 days “open”; P = 0.73); hospital length of stay (57 ± 39 days vs. 55 ± 28 days; P = 0.088); discharge from ICU and hospital (62.1% Protek Duo® vs. 57% for “open”; P = 0.9 for both); or the one-year survival between the two groups (62% Protek Duo® vs. 50% “open”; P = 0.67). The Protek Duo® group had less total time on the ventilator (15 ± 9 days vs. 27 ± 17 days; P = 0.044) and required less amount of blood products (17 ± 8.9 units RBC and 2.0 ± 1.91 units FFP vs. 31 ± 20.5 units RBC and 11.5 ± 10 units FFP; P = 0.046 and P = 0.005). Conclusions: Percutaneous t-RVAD support is a viable option for patients whom undergo LVAD placement and require right ventricular mechanical support.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信