Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support

This study sought to determine if indication for support affects the outcomes after temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support after postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, cardiac transplant, or left ventricular assist device placement. A retrospective review was performed on 80 patients...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 2018-11, Vol.156 (5), p.1885-1891
Hauptverfasser: Bhama, Jay K., Bansal, Utsav, Winger, Daniel G., Teuteberg, Jeffrey J., Bermudez, Christian, Kormos, Robert L., Bansal, Aditya
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1891
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1885
container_title The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery
container_volume 156
creator Bhama, Jay K.
Bansal, Utsav
Winger, Daniel G.
Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.
Bermudez, Christian
Kormos, Robert L.
Bansal, Aditya
description This study sought to determine if indication for support affects the outcomes after temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support after postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, cardiac transplant, or left ventricular assist device placement. A retrospective review was performed on 80 patients receiving a right ventricular assist device. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to compare survival between groups. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for failure to wean from support. The indication for support was postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in 13 patients (16%), cardiac transplant in 25 patients (31%), and left ventricular assist device in 42 patients (53%). Median support time was 6 days. Device was successfully weaned in 6 postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock cases (46%), 21 cardiac transplant cases (84%), and 35 left ventricular assist device cases (83%). Survival was worse for patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock compared with patients with a left ventricular assist device. Survival up to 3 months was better for patients who received immediate (n = 43) versus delayed (n = 37) support (79% vs 46%, P = .003). Weaning and survival remained static across implant era. Risk factor analysis identified postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock indication (odds ratio, 0.161; P = .007; confidence interval, 0.043-0.600) as an independent negative predictor of weaning from mechanical support. Temporary right ventricular mechanical support remains an effective treatment strategy after left ventricular assist device placement with immediate support resulting in superior short-term survival. Caution should be applied in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock when weaning and survival are poor. Overall survival outcomes have remained relatively static over time.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.04.094
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2049934826</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022522318312339</els_id><sourcerecordid>2049934826</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-e1c5c3d3cb2a14f96a26ee4db8e5ca0918e841ea8259fa9b7a7c5d091467c3a83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFO3DAQhq2KChbKEyChHLkkjB0nsQ8c0KotSEgcAKk3yzuZ7XqVbILtLPTt62WBI6eRfn3_jOZj7IxDwYHXl-tiHXEbCgFcFSAL0PIbm3HQTV6r6s8BmwEIkVdClEfsOIQ1ADTA9SE7ElrVnHMxYw_zzm0c2i6j15G8ow1S9uLiKovUj4O3_l_m3d9VzLa0id7h1Fmf9YQru6-h87ssDgkM05gq8Qf7vrRdoNP3ecKefv18nN_kd_e_b-fXdzlKkDEnjhWWbYkLYblc6tqKmki2C0UVWtBckZKcrBKVXlq9aGyDVZtyWTdYWlWesIv93tEPzxOFaHoXkLrObmiYghEgtS6lEnVCyz2KfgjB09KM3vXpOcPB7GyatXmzaXY2DUiTbKbW-fuBadFT-9n50JeAqz1A6c2tI28CvilsnSeMph3clwf-AwgWiYE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2049934826</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Bhama, Jay K. ; Bansal, Utsav ; Winger, Daniel G. ; Teuteberg, Jeffrey J. ; Bermudez, Christian ; Kormos, Robert L. ; Bansal, Aditya</creator><creatorcontrib>Bhama, Jay K. ; Bansal, Utsav ; Winger, Daniel G. ; Teuteberg, Jeffrey J. ; Bermudez, Christian ; Kormos, Robert L. ; Bansal, Aditya</creatorcontrib><description>This study sought to determine if indication for support affects the outcomes after temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support after postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, cardiac transplant, or left ventricular assist device placement. A retrospective review was performed on 80 patients receiving a right ventricular assist device. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to compare survival between groups. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for failure to wean from support. The indication for support was postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in 13 patients (16%), cardiac transplant in 25 patients (31%), and left ventricular assist device in 42 patients (53%). Median support time was 6 days. Device was successfully weaned in 6 postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock cases (46%), 21 cardiac transplant cases (84%), and 35 left ventricular assist device cases (83%). Survival was worse for patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock compared with patients with a left ventricular assist device. Survival up to 3 months was better for patients who received immediate (n = 43) versus delayed (n = 37) support (79% vs 46%, P = .003). Weaning and survival remained static across implant era. Risk factor analysis identified postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock indication (odds ratio, 0.161; P = .007; confidence interval, 0.043-0.600) as an independent negative predictor of weaning from mechanical support. Temporary right ventricular mechanical support remains an effective treatment strategy after left ventricular assist device placement with immediate support resulting in superior short-term survival. Caution should be applied in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock when weaning and survival are poor. Overall survival outcomes have remained relatively static over time.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-5223</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-685X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.04.094</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29861112</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>cardiogenic shock ; CentriMag ; heart transplant ; LVAD ; MCS ; RVF</subject><ispartof>The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2018-11, Vol.156 (5), p.1885-1891</ispartof><rights>2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-e1c5c3d3cb2a14f96a26ee4db8e5ca0918e841ea8259fa9b7a7c5d091467c3a83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-e1c5c3d3cb2a14f96a26ee4db8e5ca0918e841ea8259fa9b7a7c5d091467c3a83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.04.094$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29861112$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bhama, Jay K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bansal, Utsav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winger, Daniel G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bermudez, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kormos, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bansal, Aditya</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support</title><title>The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</title><addtitle>J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg</addtitle><description>This study sought to determine if indication for support affects the outcomes after temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support after postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, cardiac transplant, or left ventricular assist device placement. A retrospective review was performed on 80 patients receiving a right ventricular assist device. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to compare survival between groups. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for failure to wean from support. The indication for support was postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in 13 patients (16%), cardiac transplant in 25 patients (31%), and left ventricular assist device in 42 patients (53%). Median support time was 6 days. Device was successfully weaned in 6 postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock cases (46%), 21 cardiac transplant cases (84%), and 35 left ventricular assist device cases (83%). Survival was worse for patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock compared with patients with a left ventricular assist device. Survival up to 3 months was better for patients who received immediate (n = 43) versus delayed (n = 37) support (79% vs 46%, P = .003). Weaning and survival remained static across implant era. Risk factor analysis identified postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock indication (odds ratio, 0.161; P = .007; confidence interval, 0.043-0.600) as an independent negative predictor of weaning from mechanical support. Temporary right ventricular mechanical support remains an effective treatment strategy after left ventricular assist device placement with immediate support resulting in superior short-term survival. Caution should be applied in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock when weaning and survival are poor. Overall survival outcomes have remained relatively static over time.</description><subject>cardiogenic shock</subject><subject>CentriMag</subject><subject>heart transplant</subject><subject>LVAD</subject><subject>MCS</subject><subject>RVF</subject><issn>0022-5223</issn><issn>1097-685X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMFO3DAQhq2KChbKEyChHLkkjB0nsQ8c0KotSEgcAKk3yzuZ7XqVbILtLPTt62WBI6eRfn3_jOZj7IxDwYHXl-tiHXEbCgFcFSAL0PIbm3HQTV6r6s8BmwEIkVdClEfsOIQ1ADTA9SE7ElrVnHMxYw_zzm0c2i6j15G8ow1S9uLiKovUj4O3_l_m3d9VzLa0id7h1Fmf9YQru6-h87ssDgkM05gq8Qf7vrRdoNP3ecKefv18nN_kd_e_b-fXdzlKkDEnjhWWbYkLYblc6tqKmki2C0UVWtBckZKcrBKVXlq9aGyDVZtyWTdYWlWesIv93tEPzxOFaHoXkLrObmiYghEgtS6lEnVCyz2KfgjB09KM3vXpOcPB7GyatXmzaXY2DUiTbKbW-fuBadFT-9n50JeAqz1A6c2tI28CvilsnSeMph3clwf-AwgWiYE</recordid><startdate>20181101</startdate><enddate>20181101</enddate><creator>Bhama, Jay K.</creator><creator>Bansal, Utsav</creator><creator>Winger, Daniel G.</creator><creator>Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.</creator><creator>Bermudez, Christian</creator><creator>Kormos, Robert L.</creator><creator>Bansal, Aditya</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181101</creationdate><title>Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support</title><author>Bhama, Jay K. ; Bansal, Utsav ; Winger, Daniel G. ; Teuteberg, Jeffrey J. ; Bermudez, Christian ; Kormos, Robert L. ; Bansal, Aditya</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c404t-e1c5c3d3cb2a14f96a26ee4db8e5ca0918e841ea8259fa9b7a7c5d091467c3a83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>cardiogenic shock</topic><topic>CentriMag</topic><topic>heart transplant</topic><topic>LVAD</topic><topic>MCS</topic><topic>RVF</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bhama, Jay K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bansal, Utsav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winger, Daniel G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bermudez, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kormos, Robert L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bansal, Aditya</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bhama, Jay K.</au><au>Bansal, Utsav</au><au>Winger, Daniel G.</au><au>Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.</au><au>Bermudez, Christian</au><au>Kormos, Robert L.</au><au>Bansal, Aditya</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg</addtitle><date>2018-11-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>156</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1885</spage><epage>1891</epage><pages>1885-1891</pages><issn>0022-5223</issn><eissn>1097-685X</eissn><abstract>This study sought to determine if indication for support affects the outcomes after temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support after postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, cardiac transplant, or left ventricular assist device placement. A retrospective review was performed on 80 patients receiving a right ventricular assist device. Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was performed to compare survival between groups. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for failure to wean from support. The indication for support was postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in 13 patients (16%), cardiac transplant in 25 patients (31%), and left ventricular assist device in 42 patients (53%). Median support time was 6 days. Device was successfully weaned in 6 postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock cases (46%), 21 cardiac transplant cases (84%), and 35 left ventricular assist device cases (83%). Survival was worse for patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock compared with patients with a left ventricular assist device. Survival up to 3 months was better for patients who received immediate (n = 43) versus delayed (n = 37) support (79% vs 46%, P = .003). Weaning and survival remained static across implant era. Risk factor analysis identified postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock indication (odds ratio, 0.161; P = .007; confidence interval, 0.043-0.600) as an independent negative predictor of weaning from mechanical support. Temporary right ventricular mechanical support remains an effective treatment strategy after left ventricular assist device placement with immediate support resulting in superior short-term survival. Caution should be applied in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock when weaning and survival are poor. Overall survival outcomes have remained relatively static over time.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>29861112</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.04.094</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-5223
ispartof The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2018-11, Vol.156 (5), p.1885-1891
issn 0022-5223
1097-685X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2049934826
source ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects cardiogenic shock
CentriMag
heart transplant
LVAD
MCS
RVF
title Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T00%3A17%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20experience%20with%20temporary%20right%20ventricular%20mechanical%20circulatory%20support&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20thoracic%20and%20cardiovascular%20surgery&rft.au=Bhama,%20Jay%20K.&rft.date=2018-11-01&rft.volume=156&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1885&rft.epage=1891&rft.pages=1885-1891&rft.issn=0022-5223&rft.eissn=1097-685X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.04.094&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2049934826%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2049934826&rft_id=info:pmid/29861112&rft_els_id=S0022522318312339&rfr_iscdi=true