PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 1763305

[Mechanical circulatory support today].

Abstract

Invasive mechanical circulatory support is the approach of choice in patients with acute myocardial failure resistant to conventional therapy. Today survival rates between 24% for postcardiotomy cardiac failure and 40% for bridge to heart transplantation can be achieved. However, a broad armamentarium of devices for mechanical circulatory support is necessary to provide optimum assistance for the failing heart in the various clinical situations. The available devices and their potential indications and limitations are reviewed.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L K von Segesser, M I Turina. 1991-12-28. [Mechanical circulatory support today].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1763305/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Percutaneous endocardial and epicardial ablation of hypotensive ventricular tachycardia with percutaneous left ventricular assist in the electrophysiology laboratory.

Ventricular tachycardia (VT) in the setting of structural heart disease is challenging to treat with percutaneous catheter ablation due to the presence of complex substrate, multiple morphologies, hemodynamic instability, and epicardial circuits. When substrate-based approaches fail, however, it may be impossible to map and ablate hemodynamically unstable arrhythmias. We describe a novel approach to endocardial and epicardial mapping and ablation of hypotensive VT using a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in the electrophysiology laboratory, permitting near-surgical access to cardiac structures.

Assisted Circulation↗

IgG classification of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies to identify patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia during mechanical circulatory support.

Commercial immunoassays frequently detect anti-PF4/heparin antibodies during mechanical circulatory support (MCS), but only a small minority of patients develops heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Whereas platelet functional tests can distinguish between platelet-activating and non-platelet-activating antibodies, commercial PF4-dependent immunoassays do not. Between 2003 and 2004, 113 patients were placed on MCS. Blood samples were obtained on postimplant day 5-7 for analyses by antibody assays and the functional heparin-induced platelet activation (HIPA) assay. Three distinct groups of patient sera were identified: platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies (n = 10), non-platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies (n = 53), and anti-PF4/heparin antibody negative (n = 50). Patients with platelet-activating antibodies had the highest risk for thromboembolic events (P < 0.005), whereas those with non-platelet-activating antibodies did not differ from antibody negative patients (P = 0.369). The enzyme-immunoassay and column agglutination assays, which cover all immunoglobulin classes, demonstrated adequate sensitivity and negative predictive value; yet, both lacked specificity with respect to the platelet-activating antibodies. If all antibody positive patients were further classified by an IgG-specific anti-PF4/heparin enzyme-immuno assay, specificity for platelet-activating antibodies increased. Whereas IgG-specific optical density (OD) values below 1.0 were likely for non-platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies, higher values were progressively predictive for pathogenic platelet activation. The probability of the development of clinical HIT also increased steeply. In conclusion, platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin antibodies are relatively common (about 9%) in patients on MCS and are associated with significantly higher thrombotic event rates. Low IgG-specific OD values (< 1.0) in the enzyme-immunoassay indicate low likelihood for the presence of platelet-activating antibodies. These results justify further validation so that anticoagulation during MCS becomes safer and adequate.

Assisted Circulation↗