外周右心室装置支持的结果:比较右心室支持的双腔、单管和股静脉插管策略

Ioana B Florea, Kunal D Kotkar, Irene Fischer, Marci Damiano, Akinobu Itoh, Ralph J Damiano, Amit A Pawale, Muhammad F Masood
{"title":"外周右心室装置支持的结果:比较右心室支持的双腔、单管和股静脉插管策略","authors":"Ioana B Florea, Kunal D Kotkar, Irene Fischer, Marci Damiano, Akinobu Itoh, Ralph J Damiano, Amit A Pawale, Muhammad F Masood","doi":"10.1177/02676591241284862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionThe Protek Duo (PtD) dual lumen, single cannula was developed as a percutaneous system for temporary mechanical support, inserted through the internal jugular vein (IJ) for both atrial inflow and pulmonary artery outflow. Outcomes of PtD compared to alternative Peripheral Right Ventricular Assist Device (pRVAD) methods are limited.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of pRVAD recipients from January 2017 - February 2022 ( n = 111). These were classified into PtD ( n = 52) patients and Non-Protek [(N-PtD) ( n = 59)] recipients undergoing cannulation of the IJ and femoral vein. Results were further stratified by indication for pRVAD support: cardiogenic etiologies of heart failure and progressive ARDS.ResultsNo survival benefit was detected between PtD and N-PtD groups at 1-week (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.49–3.56, p = 0.58) or 6-month (OR: 9.83, 95% CI: 0.37–1.84, p = 0.64) follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in whether patients’ mobility progressed to out-of-bed activity ( p = 0.26) or ambulation ( p = 0.38). No differences were noted in time to out-of-bed ( p = 0.26) or time to ambulation ( p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis of patients by indication for pRVAD cannulation, these results persisted; no difference was noted in mid-term mortality (Cardiogenic: p = 0.39; ARDS: p = 0.91), progression to out-of-bed ( p = 0.59; p = 1.00), or ambulation ( p = 0.51; p-0.68). Among secondary outcomes, PtD patients had an increased dialysis requirement ( p = 0.02). There were no differences in ability to wean from RVAD ( p = 0.06), tracheostomy ( p = 0.88), major bleeding events ( p = 0.57), stroke ( p = 0.58), or hospital length of stay ( p = 0.39).ConclusionsOutcomes with PtD are comparable to those of traditional pRVAD cannulation strategies. Of note, no mobility benefit was observed to the use of PtD across several metrics.","PeriodicalId":519219,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes in peripheral right ventricular device support: Comparing the dual lumen, single canula and femoral vein cannulation strategies for right ventricular support\",\"authors\":\"Ioana B Florea, Kunal D Kotkar, Irene Fischer, Marci Damiano, Akinobu Itoh, Ralph J Damiano, Amit A Pawale, Muhammad F Masood\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02676591241284862\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IntroductionThe Protek Duo (PtD) dual lumen, single cannula was developed as a percutaneous system for temporary mechanical support, inserted through the internal jugular vein (IJ) for both atrial inflow and pulmonary artery outflow. Outcomes of PtD compared to alternative Peripheral Right Ventricular Assist Device (pRVAD) methods are limited.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of pRVAD recipients from January 2017 - February 2022 ( n = 111). These were classified into PtD ( n = 52) patients and Non-Protek [(N-PtD) ( n = 59)] recipients undergoing cannulation of the IJ and femoral vein. Results were further stratified by indication for pRVAD support: cardiogenic etiologies of heart failure and progressive ARDS.ResultsNo survival benefit was detected between PtD and N-PtD groups at 1-week (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.49–3.56, p = 0.58) or 6-month (OR: 9.83, 95% CI: 0.37–1.84, p = 0.64) follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in whether patients’ mobility progressed to out-of-bed activity ( p = 0.26) or ambulation ( p = 0.38). No differences were noted in time to out-of-bed ( p = 0.26) or time to ambulation ( p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis of patients by indication for pRVAD cannulation, these results persisted; no difference was noted in mid-term mortality (Cardiogenic: p = 0.39; ARDS: p = 0.91), progression to out-of-bed ( p = 0.59; p = 1.00), or ambulation ( p = 0.51; p-0.68). Among secondary outcomes, PtD patients had an increased dialysis requirement ( p = 0.02). There were no differences in ability to wean from RVAD ( p = 0.06), tracheostomy ( p = 0.88), major bleeding events ( p = 0.57), stroke ( p = 0.58), or hospital length of stay ( p = 0.39).ConclusionsOutcomes with PtD are comparable to those of traditional pRVAD cannulation strategies. Of note, no mobility benefit was observed to the use of PtD across several metrics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":519219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perfusion\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perfusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241284862\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591241284862","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

导言Protek Duo(PtD)双腔单套管是一种用于临时机械支持的经皮系统,通过颈内静脉(IJ)插入,同时用于心房流入和肺动脉流出。与其他外周右心室辅助装置(pRVAD)方法相比,PtD 的疗效有限。方法对 2017 年 1 月至 2022 年 2 月期间接受 pRVAD 的患者(n = 111)进行了回顾性分析。这些患者被分为PtD(n = 52)患者和非Protek[(N-PtD)(n = 59)]受者,他们都接受了IJ和股静脉插管。结果在随访 1 周(OR:1.32,95% CI:0.49-3.56,p = 0.58)或 6 个月(OR:9.83,95% CI:0.37-1.84,p = 0.64)时,PtD 组和 N-PtD 组之间均未发现生存获益。患者的活动能力是否发展到离床活动(P = 0.26)或步行(P = 0.38),在统计学上没有明显差异。下床活动时间(p = 0.26)和下地活动时间(p = 0.36)也无差异。按 pRVAD 插管适应症对患者进行亚组分析后,这些结果依然存在;中期死亡率(心源性:p = 0.39;ARDS:p = 0.91)、脱离病床时间(p = 0.59;p = 1.00)或活动时间(p = 0.51;p-0.68)均无差异。在次要结果中,PtD 患者的透析需求增加(p = 0.02)。结论 PtD 的结果与传统的 pRVAD 插管策略相当。值得注意的是,在几项指标中均未观察到使用 PtD 对移动性有任何益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcomes in peripheral right ventricular device support: Comparing the dual lumen, single canula and femoral vein cannulation strategies for right ventricular support
IntroductionThe Protek Duo (PtD) dual lumen, single cannula was developed as a percutaneous system for temporary mechanical support, inserted through the internal jugular vein (IJ) for both atrial inflow and pulmonary artery outflow. Outcomes of PtD compared to alternative Peripheral Right Ventricular Assist Device (pRVAD) methods are limited.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of pRVAD recipients from January 2017 - February 2022 ( n = 111). These were classified into PtD ( n = 52) patients and Non-Protek [(N-PtD) ( n = 59)] recipients undergoing cannulation of the IJ and femoral vein. Results were further stratified by indication for pRVAD support: cardiogenic etiologies of heart failure and progressive ARDS.ResultsNo survival benefit was detected between PtD and N-PtD groups at 1-week (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.49–3.56, p = 0.58) or 6-month (OR: 9.83, 95% CI: 0.37–1.84, p = 0.64) follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in whether patients’ mobility progressed to out-of-bed activity ( p = 0.26) or ambulation ( p = 0.38). No differences were noted in time to out-of-bed ( p = 0.26) or time to ambulation ( p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis of patients by indication for pRVAD cannulation, these results persisted; no difference was noted in mid-term mortality (Cardiogenic: p = 0.39; ARDS: p = 0.91), progression to out-of-bed ( p = 0.59; p = 1.00), or ambulation ( p = 0.51; p-0.68). Among secondary outcomes, PtD patients had an increased dialysis requirement ( p = 0.02). There were no differences in ability to wean from RVAD ( p = 0.06), tracheostomy ( p = 0.88), major bleeding events ( p = 0.57), stroke ( p = 0.58), or hospital length of stay ( p = 0.39).ConclusionsOutcomes with PtD are comparable to those of traditional pRVAD cannulation strategies. Of note, no mobility benefit was observed to the use of PtD across several metrics.
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