A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Single-centre experience with the Thoratec paracorporeal ventricular assist device for patients with primary cardiac failure. | LitMetric

Single-centre experience with the Thoratec paracorporeal ventricular assist device for patients with primary cardiac failure.

Arch Cardiovasc Dis

Service de chirurgie thoracique et cardiovasculaire, hôpital Henri-Mondor, AP-HP, 51, avenue du Maréchal-de-Lattre-de-Tassigny, 94000 Créteil cedex, France.

Published: December 2009

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support may be indicated in some patients with cardiac failure refractory to conventional therapy, as a bridge to myocardial recovery or transplantation.

Aims: To evaluate outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed by the primary use of a paracorporeal ventricular assist device (p-VAD).

Methods: We did a retrospective analysis of demographics, clinical characteristics and survival of patients assisted with a Thoratec p-VAD.

Results: p-VADs were used in 84 patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction (35%), idiopathic (31%) or ischaemic (12%) cardiomyopathy, myocarditis or other causes (23%). Before implantation, 23% had cardiac arrest, 38% were on a ventilator and 31% were on an intra-aortic balloon pump. Cardiac index was 1.6+/-0.5 L/min/m(2) and total bilirubin levels were 39+/-59 micromol/L. During support, 29 patients (35%) died in the intensive care unit and seven (10%) died after leaving. Forty-seven patients (56%) were weaned or transplanted, with one still under support. Despite significantly more advanced preoperative end-organ dysfunction, survival rates were similar in patients with biventricular devices (74%) and those undergoing isolated left ventricular support (24%) (63% versus 45%, respectively; p=0.2). Actuarial survival estimates after transplantation were 78.7+/-6.3%, 73.4+/-6.9% and 62.6+/-8.3% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively.

Conclusions: Our experience validates the use of p-VAD as a primary device to support patients with cardiogenic shock. In contrast to short-term devices, p-VADs provide immediate ventricular unloading and pulsatile perfusion in a single procedure. Biventricular support should be used liberally in patients with end-organ dysfunction.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2009.03.010DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cardiogenic shock
12
patients
10
paracorporeal ventricular
8
ventricular assist
8
assist device
8
cardiac failure
8
patients cardiogenic
8
support patients
8
end-organ dysfunction
8
support
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!