ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2024
Discussion of hemodynamic optimization strategies and the canonical understanding of hemodynamics during biventricular mechanical support in cardiogenic shock: does the flow balance make the difference?
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may stabilize patients with severe cardiogenic shock (CS) following myocardial infarction (MI). However, the canonical understanding of hemodynamics related to the determination of the native cardiac output (CO) does not explain or support the understanding of combined left and right MCS. To ensure the most optimal therapy control, the current principles of hemodynamic measurements during biventricular support should be re-evaluated.
methodsHere we report a protocol of hemodynamic optimization strategy during biventricular MCS (VA-ECMO and left ventricular Impella) in a case series of 10 consecutive patients with severe cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. During the protocol, the flow rates of both devices were switched in opposing directions (+ / - 0.7 l/min) for specified times. To address the limitations of existing hemodynamic measurement strategies during biventricular support, different measurement techniques (thermodilution, Fick principle, mixed venous oxygen saturation) were performed by pulmonary artery catheterization. Additionally, Doppler ultrasound was performed to determine the renal resistive index (RRI) as an indicator of renal perfusion.
resultsThe comparison between condition 1 (ECMO flow > Impella flow) and condition 2 (Impella flow > VA-ECMO flow) revealed significant changes in hemodynamics. In detail, compared to condition 1, condition 2 results in a significant increase in cardiac output (3.86 ± 1.11 vs. 5.44 ± 1.13 l/min, p = 0.005) and cardiac index (2.04 ± 0.64 vs. 2.85 ± 0.69, p = 0.013), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (56.44 ± 6.97% vs. 62.02 ± 5.64% p = 0.049), whereas systemic vascular resistance decreased from 1618 ± 337 to 1086 ± 306 s*cm
conclusionsTo monitor and optimize MCS in CS, PA catheterization for hemodynamic measurement is applicable. Higher Impella flow is superior to higher VA-ECMO flow resulting in a more profound increase in CO with subsequent improvement of organ perfusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.