급성 심근경색으로 인한 심인성 쇼크 환자에 대한 경피적 순환 보조장치($EBS^{(R)}$) 적용의 초기경험

Initial Experience of the Emergency Bypass System ($EBS^{(R)}$) for the Patients with Cardiogenic Shock due to an Acute Myocardial Infarction

  • 류경민 (단국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 김삼현 (단국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 서필원 (단국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 류재욱 (단국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 김석곤 (단국대학교 의과대학 마취통증의학교실) ;
  • 김영화 (단국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 박성식 (단국대학교 의과대학 흉부외과학교실)
  • Ryu, Kyoung-Min (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of Medicine, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Sam-Hyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of Medicine, Dankook University) ;
  • Seo, Pil-Won (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of Medicine, Dankook University) ;
  • Ryu, Jae-Wook (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of Medicine, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Seok-Kon (Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Hwa (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of Medicine, Dankook University) ;
  • Park, Seong-Sik (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of Medicine, Dankook University)
  • 발행 : 2008.06.05

초록

배경: 경피적 순환 보조장치는 다른 수단으로는 소생이 불가능한 심인성 쇼크 환자에 있어서 매우 효과적인 생명유지 장치이다. 특히 심근경색 및 고위험군의 관상동맥중재술, 심장수술 후 심인성 쇼크 등 다양한 임상상황에서 사용되며, 사용이 손쉬운 장점을 가지고 있다. 저자들은 급성 심근경색으로 입원한 환자 중 심인성 쇼크가 발생하여 경피적 순환 보조장치를 사용한 환자들의 초기경험을 분석하였다. 대상 및 방법: 2005년 1월부터 2006년 12월까지 급성 심근경색에 의한 심인성 쇼크 환자 8명에게 경피적 순환 보조장치(CAPIOX emergent bypass system, $EBS^{(R)}$, Terumo Inc., Tokyo, Japan)를 적용하였다. Seldinger방법을 사용하여 대퇴정맥에 20Fr의 유입관을 우심방까지 거치하고, 대퇴동맥에 16Fr의 유출관을 거치하면서 동시에 자가 충진을 완료하였다. 혈류량을 $2.5{\sim}3.0L/min/m^2$으로 유지하였고, 헤파린을 정주하면서 ACT를 200초 이상으로 유지하였다 결과: 환자의 평균나이는 $61.1{\pm}14.2$세($39{\sim}77$세)였다. 관상동맥중재술(PCI) 시행 이전에 거치한 경우가 3예, 중재술 도중 발생하여 거치한 경우가 3예, 중재술 후가 1예, 관상동맥우회술 후가 1예였다. 평균 $EBS^{(R)}$가동시간은 $47.5{\sim}27.9$시간$(8{\sim}76$시간)이었으며, 이 중 $EBS^{(R)}$ 이탈이 가능하였던 경우가 5명(62.5%)으로 이들은 모두 퇴원이 가능하였다. $EBS^{(R)}$적용으로 인한 합병증은 모두 3예로 급성 신부전이 2예, 위장관 출혈이 1예 있었다. 사망한 3명의 환자 중 2명은 $EBS^{(R)}$ 적용 전 심정지가 와 있었던 경우였으며, 1명은 난치성 심실세동이 있었던 경우였다. 퇴원한 환자는 모두 생존하여 평균 $16.8{\pm}3.1$개월($12{\sim}20$개월)째 외래 추적관찰 중이다. 결론: 다른 방법으로 소생이 힘든 급성 심근경색으로 인한 심인성 쇼크 환자에게 $EBS^{(R)}$를 적용함으로써 환자의 생명을 구할 수 있었고, 일단 회복된 환자들은 별다른 후유증 없이 생존하였다. 향후 $EBS^{(R)}$의 적절한 적용시기와 적용방법에 대해서는 보다 많은 경험 및 임상연구가 필요할 것으로 생각된다.

Background: Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support. (PCPS) has the potential to rescue patients in cardiogenic shock who might otherwise die. PCPS has been a therapeutic option in a variety of the clinical settings such as for patients with myocardial Infarction, high-risk coronary intervention and postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, and the PCPS device is easy to install. We report our early experience with PCPS as a life saving procedure in cardiogenic shock patients due to acute myocardial infarction. Material and Method: From January 2005 to December 2006, eight patients in cardiogenic shock with acute myocardial infarction underwent PCPS using the CAPIOX emergency bypass system($EBS^{(R)}$, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan). Uptake cannulae were inserted deep into the femoral vein up to the right atrium and return cannulae were inserted into the femoral artery with Seldinger techniques using 20 and 16-French cannulae, respectively. Simultaneously, autopriming was performed at the $EBS^{(R)}$ circuit. The $EBS^{(R)}$ flow rate was maintained between $2.5{\sim}3.0L/min/m^2$ and anticoagulation was performed using intravenous heparin with an ACT level above 200 seconds. Result: The mean age of patients was $61.1{\pm}14.2$ years (range, 39 to 77 years). Three patients were under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), three patients were under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ during PCI, one patient was under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ after PCI, and one patient was under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ after coronary bypass surgery. The mean support time was $47.5{\pm}27.9$ hours (range, 8 to 76 hours). Five patients (62.5%) could be weaned from the $EBS^{(R)}$ after $53.6{\pm}27.2$ hours. (range, 12 to 68 hours) of support. All of the patients who could successfully be weaned from support were discharged from the hospital. There were three complications: one case of gastrointestinal bleeding and two cases of acute renal failure. Two of the three mortality cases were under cardiac arrest before $EBS^{(R)}$ support, and one patient had an intractable ventricular arrhythmia during the support. All of the discharged patients are still surviving at $16.8{\pm}3.1$ months (range, 12 to 20 months) of follow-up. Conclusion: The use of $EBS^{(R)}$ for cardiogenic shock caused by an acute myocardial infarction could rescue patients who might otherwise have died. Successfully recovered patients after $EBS^{(R)}$ treatment have survived without severe complications. More experience and additional clinical investigations are necessary to elucidate the proper installation timing and management protocol of the $EBS^{(R)}$ in the future.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Schwarz B, Mair P, Margreiter J, et al. Experience with percutaneous venoarterial cardiopulmonary bypass for emergency circulatory support. Crit Care Med 2003;31:758- 64 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000053522.55711.E3
  2. Sung K, Lee YT, Park PW, et al. Improved survival after cardiac arrest using emergent autopriming percutaneous cardiopulmonary support. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:651-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.03.017
  3. Reichman RT, Joyo CI, Dembisky WP, et al. Improved patient survival after cardiac arrest using a cardiopulmonary support system. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;49:101-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(90)90363-B
  4. Matsuwaka R, Sakakibara T, Shintani H, et al. Emergency cardiopulmonary bypass support in patients with severe cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Heart Vessels 1996;11:27-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01744596
  5. Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M, Medina A, et al. Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support in critical patients needing coronary interventions with stents. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2002;57:467-75 https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10340
  6. Sakamoto S, Matsubara J, Matsubara T, et al. Clinical effects of percutaneous cardiopulmonary support in severe hear failure: early results and analysis of complications. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;9:105-10
  7. Rhee I, Kwon SU, Sung K, et al. Experience with emergency percutaneous cardiopulmonary support in in-hospital cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock due to the ischemic heart disease. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;39:201-7
  8. William DC, Atkin PJ, Dembisky WP, et al. Analysis of clinical trends in a program of emergent ECLS for cardiovascular collapse. ASAIO J 1997;43:65-8
  9. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction-executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation 2004;110: 588-636 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000134791.68010.FA
  10. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003;361:13-20 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12113-7
  11. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003;349: 733-42 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa025142
  12. Lim SY, Jeong MH, Yang BR, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction older than 75 years. Korean Circulation J 2005;35:613-9 https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2005.35.8.613
  13. Hill JG, Bruhn PS, Cohen SE, et al. Emergent applications of cardiopulmonary support: a multiinstitutional experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;54:699-704 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(92)91014-Z
  14. Vanier J, Ommen VV, Maessen J, Geskes G, Lamerichs L, Waltenberger J. Elective high-risk percutaneous interventions supports by extracorporeal life support. Am J Cardiol 2007; 99:771-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.10.034
  15. Burkle CM, Nuttal GA, Rihal CS. Cardiopulmonary bypass support for percutaneous coronary interventions: what the anesthesiologist needs to know. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2005;19:501-4 https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2004.10.003
  16. Orime Y, Shino M, Hata H, et al. Clinical experiences of percutaneous cardiopulmonary support: its effectiveness and limit. Artif Organs 1998;22:498-501 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1594.1998.06136.x
  17. Yamashita C, Ataka T, Azami T, et al. Usefulness of postoperative percutaneous cardiopulmonary support using a centrifugal pump: retrospective analysis of complications. Artif Organs 1998;23:360-5 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1594.1999.06282.x