Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A Gemelli IRCSS, Rome, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Cardiol J. 2022;29(1):115-132. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0182. Epub 2020 Dec 21.
Cardiac assistance represents an emerging issue in cardiovascular medicine. The evolution of invasive cardiology techniques is making the catheterization laboratory one of the main hospital sites where implantation of percutaneous ventricular assistance devices (PVADs) is discussed and performed. Among available PVADs, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are the most popular and offer completely different levels and ways to assist critical patients. The main settings calling for PVAD consideration in the catheterization laboratory are clinically indicated high-risk patients (CHIP) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and patients with cardiogenic shock or refractory cardiac arrest. In CHIP, PVAD serves the purpose of preventing hemodynamic collapse during PCI. This may also allow more extensive revascularizations and higher quality revascularization plans (imaging use, debulking, stent result optimization). IABP or Impella are more commonly selected whereas ECMO is seldom considered as a third option for highly selected patients. The "elective" nature of CHIP-PCI should allow careful procedure planning (peripheral artery disease assessment, access site selection and management) in order to minimize vascular/bleeding complications. Cardiogenic shock is still associated with high mortality rates, and PVAD theoretically offers further recovery chances. The lack of benefit observed with systematic IABP use is currently prompting consideration of the roles of Impella and ECMO. Prolonged assistance is often needed. Thus, team decisions and shared protocols for PVAD selection have to be promoted, taking into consideration available resources and operators' skills. In this paper, we critically review the available data in the field and highlight the possible decisionmaking hubs that catheterization-laboratory teams may consider in order to rationalize PVAD selection.
心脏辅助代表心血管医学中的一个新兴问题。介入心脏病学技术的发展使得导管室成为讨论和进行经皮心室辅助装置(PVAD)植入的主要医院场所之一。在现有的 PVAD 中,主动脉内球囊泵(IABP)、Impella 和体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)是最受欢迎的,它们提供了完全不同水平和方式来辅助重症患者。在导管室中需要考虑 PVAD 的主要情况是接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的临床高危患者(CHIP)和心源性休克或难治性心脏骤停患者。在 CHIP 中,PVAD 的目的是在 PCI 期间防止血液动力学崩溃。这也可以允许更广泛的血运重建和更高质量的血运重建计划(成像使用、减容、支架结果优化)。IABP 或 Impella 更为常见,而 ECMO 很少被视为高度选择患者的第三种选择。CHIP-PCI 的“选择性”性质应该允许仔细的程序规划(外周动脉疾病评估、入路选择和管理),以最大限度地减少血管/出血并发症。心源性休克仍然与高死亡率相关,PVAD 理论上提供了进一步恢复的机会。目前,系统使用 IABP 缺乏益处促使人们考虑 Impella 和 ECMO 的作用。通常需要长时间的辅助。因此,必须促进团队决策和共享 PVAD 选择协议,同时考虑到可用资源和操作人员的技能。在本文中,我们批判性地回顾了该领域的现有数据,并强调了导管室团队可能考虑的可能的决策中心,以合理化 PVAD 的选择。