Suppr超能文献

搏动性与连续性血流在心室辅助装置治疗中的比较。

Pulsatile vs. continuous flow in ventricular assist device therapy.

机构信息

Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA.

出版信息

Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2012 Jun;26(2):105-15. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2012.03.004.

Abstract

A left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an important treatment option for a patient with end-stage heart failure. Both continuous and non-pulsatile devices are available, each with different effects on a patient's physiology. In general, these effects are not clinically significant with the exception of bleeding events which are more common with continuous-flow devices in some series. Both devices increase survival beyond medical management. Continuous-flow devices are smaller and are associated with less overall morbidity than pulsatile devices.

摘要

左心室辅助装置(LVAD)是终末期心力衰竭患者的重要治疗选择。有连续流和非搏动流两种设备,它们对患者的生理机能有不同的影响。一般来说,这些影响在临床上并不显著,除了出血事件,在某些系列中连续流设备更常见。这两种设备都能提高生存率,优于单纯的药物治疗。连续流设备体积更小,与搏动流设备相比,整体发病率更低。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验