Browse > Article

Experiences with Emergency Percutaneous Cardiopulmonary Support in In-hospital Cardiac Arrest or Cardiogenic Shock due to the Ischemic Heart Disease  

Rhee Il (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Kwon Sung-Uk (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Cho Sung Woo (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Gwon Hyeon-Cheol (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Lee Young Tak (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Park Pyo Won (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Park Kay-Hyun (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Lee Sang Hoon (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Sung Kiick (Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
Publication Information
Journal of Chest Surgery / v.39, no.3, 2006 , pp. 201-207 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) provides passive support of gas exchange and perfusion, allowing the use of other methods of care for organ recovery, and saves lives of patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure in a wide variety of clinical settings with a minimal risk of bleeding and need for chest re~ exploration. We summarized a single center's experiences with PCPS in patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest due to the ischemic heart disease. Material and Method: Among the 20 consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest from May 1999 to June 2005, Biopump (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN) was used in 7 patients and the self-priming, heparin-coated circuit of EBS (Terumo, Japan) was applied to remaining 13 patients. Most of cannulations were performed percutaneously via femoral arteries and veins. The long venous cannulas of DLP (Medtronic inc. Minneapolis, MN) or the RMI (Edwards's lifescience LLC, Irvine, CA) were used with the arterial cannulae from 17 Fr to 21 Fr and the venous cannula from 21 Fr to 28 Fr. Result: The 20 consecutive patients who were severely compromised and received PCPS for the purpose of resuscitation were comprised of 13 cardiac arrests and 7 cardiogenic shocks in which by-pass surgery was performed in 11 patients and 9 ongoing PCls under the cardiopulmonary support. The mean support time on the PCPS was 38$\pm$42 hours. Of the 20 patients implanted with PCPS, 11 patients ($55\%$) have had the PCPS removed successfully; overall, 8 of these patients ($40\%$) were discharged from the hospital in an average surviving time for 27$\pm$17 days after removing the PCPS and survived well with 31$\pm$30 months of follow-up after the procedure. Conclusion: The use of PCPS appears to provide the hemodynamic restoration, allowing the survival of patients in cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock who would otherwise not survive, and patients receiving PCPS had a relatively long-term survival.
Keywords
Percutaneous bypass; Cardiac arrest; Cardiogenic shock; Ischemic heart disease;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Reichman RT, Joyo CI, Dembitsky WP, et al. Improved patient survival after cardiac arrest using a cardiopulmonary support system. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;49:101-5   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Orime Y, Shino M, Hata H, et al. Clinical experiences of percutaneous cardiopulmonary support: its effectiveness and limit. Artif Organs 1998;22:498-501   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Yamashita C, Ataka T, Azami T, et al. Usefulness of post operative percutaneous cardiopulmonary support using a centrifugal pump: retrospective analysis of complications. Artif Organs 1999;23:360-5   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Guarneri EM, Califana JR, Schatz RA, Morris NB, Teirstein PS. Utility of standby cardiopulmonary support for elective coronary interventions. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 1999;46: 32-5   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Murashita T, Eya K, Miyatake T, et al. Outcome of the perioperative use of percutaneous cardiopulmonary support for adult cardiac surgery: factors affecting hospital mortality. Artif Organs 2004;28:189-95   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Pan M, Suarez de Lezo J, Medina A, et al. In-laboratory removal of femoral sheath following protamin administration in patients having intracoronary stents implantation. Am J Cardiol 1997;80:1336-8   DOI   ScienceOn
7 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   DOI
8 Ree MR, Browne T, Sivananthan UM, et al. Cardiac resuscitation with percutaneous cardiopulmonary support. Lancet 1992;340:513-4   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Reedy JE, Swartz MT, Raithel SC, Szukalski EA, Pennington DG. Mechanical cardiopulmonary support for refractory cardiogenic shock. Heart Lung 1990;19:514-23
10 William DC, Atkins PJ, Dembisky WP, et al. Analysis of clinical trends in a program of emergent ECLS for caediovascular collapse. ASAIO J 1997;43:65-8
11 Scholz KH, Figulla HR, Schroder T, et al. Pulmonary and left ventricular decompression by artificial pulmonary valve incompetence during percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass support in cardiac arrest. Circulation 1995;91:2664-8   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Shawl FA, Domanski MJ, Punja A, Hemandez T. Emergency percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass support in cardiopulmonary shock from acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1989;64:967-70   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Hill JG, Bruhn PS, Cohen SE, et al. Emergent applications of cardiopulmonary support: a multiinstitutional experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;54:699-704   DOI   ScienceOn
14 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   DOI   ScienceOn