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}
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.