Nix Christoph, Ishikawa Kiyotake, Meyns Bart, Yasuda Shota, Adriaenssens Tom, Barth Svenja, Zayat Rashad, Leprince Pascal, Lebreton Guillaume
Department of Anesthesiology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany.
Abiomed Europe GmbH, Aachen, Germany.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Jun 10;7:99. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2020.00099. eCollection 2020.
Several mechanical circulatory assist devices are used to treat critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support during post-myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock. However, little guidance is available to choose an appropriate device to match a particular patient's needs. An increased understanding of hemodynamic effects of the pump systems and their impact on myocardial pre-/afterload might help to better understand their behavior in different clinical settings. This was an open-labeled, randomized acute animal experiment. A model of acute univentricular myocardial injury by temporary balloon occlusion was used. The experiment was carried out in 10 juveniles female Piétrain pigs. The animals were randomized to mechanical hemodynamic support either by peripheral veno-arterial (VA-)ECMO or Impella CP. While both devices were able to provide flows above 3 L/min and maintain sufficient end-organ perfusion, support by Impella resulted in a significantly more pronounced immediate effect on myocardial unloading: At the onset of device support, the remaining native cardiac output was reduced by 23.5 ± 15.3% ECMO vs. 66.2 ± 36.2% (Impella, = 0.021). Native stroke volume was significantly decreased by Impella support compared to ECMO, indicating less mechanical work being conducted by the Impella-supported hearts despite similar total assisted cardiac output. Peripheral VA-ECMO and the transaortic Impella pump resulted in contrasting hemodynamic fingerprints. Both devices provided sufficient hemodynamic support and reduce left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in the acute setting. Treatment with the Impella device resulted in a more effective volume unloading of the left ventricle. A significant reduction in myocardial oxygen consumption equivalent was achieved by both devices: The Impella device resulted in a left-shift of the pressure-volume loop and a decreased pressure-volume-area (PVA), while VA-ECMO increased PVA but decreased heart rate. These data highlight the importance of specifically targeting heart rate in the management of AMI patients on hemodynamic support.
几种机械循环辅助装置用于治疗在心肌梗死后或心源性休克期间需要血流动力学支持的危重病患者。然而,对于选择合适的装置以满足特定患者的需求,几乎没有可用的指导。对泵系统的血流动力学效应及其对心肌前/后负荷的影响有更深入的了解,可能有助于更好地理解它们在不同临床环境中的行为。这是一项开放标签、随机的急性动物实验。使用了通过临时球囊闭塞造成急性单心室心肌损伤的模型。实验在10只幼年雌性皮特兰猪身上进行。动物被随机分为接受外周静脉-动脉(VA)体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)或Impella CP进行机械血流动力学支持。虽然两种装置都能够提供高于3 L/分钟的流量并维持足够的终末器官灌注,但Impella支持导致对心肌卸载的即时效应明显更显著:在装置支持开始时,剩余的自身心输出量在ECMO时降低了23.5±15.3%,而在Impella时降低了66.2±36.2%(P = 0.021)。与ECMO相比,Impella支持使自身每搏量显著降低,这表明尽管总辅助心输出量相似,但Impella支持的心脏进行的机械功更少。外周VA-ECMO和经主动脉的Impella泵产生了截然不同的血流动力学特征。两种装置在急性情况下都提供了足够的血流动力学支持并降低了左心室舒张末期压力。使用Impella装置治疗导致左心室更有效地进行容量卸载。两种装置都实现了心肌氧消耗当量的显著降低:Impella装置导致压力-容量环左移和压力-容量面积(PVA)减小,而VA-ECMO增加了PVA但降低了心率。这些数据突出了在对接受血流动力学支持的急性心肌梗死患者的管理中特别针对心率的重要性。