Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38770455›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Optimizing Perioperative Care for Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in High-Risk Patients Supported by Impella 5.5.

Nikhil Jaganathan, Mallikarjuna Devarapalli, Vikas Kumar

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nikhil JaganathanAnesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Augusta University Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, USA.
Mallikarjuna DevarapalliAnesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Augusta University Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, USA.
Vikas KumarAnesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Augusta University Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Impella 5.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) is a surgically implanted mechanical circulatory support device that helps support hemodynamically compromised patients. The device's risks and benefits must be entirely known, especially in the electrophysiology lab. Due to unexpected hemodynamic changes during pace mapping and ablation, such as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and asystole, it is sometimes necessary to implement chemical support with inotropic agents such as epinephrine or mechanical support with devices such as an Impella. We present the case of a 72-year-old male with a biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) placed for refractory VT presenting for VT ablation. He had ischemic cardiomyopathy with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 33% and medical history of cardiac sarcoidosis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, pulmonary embolism, left bundle branch block, and coronary artery disease. Due to the nature of the procedure and his history of arrhythmia, the patient was deemed a candidate for Impella 5.5. After evaluating patient risk factors, the cardiothoracic anesthesia team developed a strategic approach with imaging (including radiographic and echocardiographic imaging), Impella monitoring, and pharmacologic management with inotropes and vasopressors, allowing for uncomplicated perioperative management during the ablation. Given the procedure's intricacies and the patient's arrhythmia history, the medical team identified the patient as suitable for Impella 5.5 due to better performance and greater cardiac output than Impella 2.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA). Following a thorough assessment of the patient's risk factors, the cardiothoracic anesthesia team devised a comprehensive strategy to facilitate smooth perioperative management during the ablation, minimizing complications. The VT ablation procedure was performed successfully and effectively terminated the arrhythmia. However, the patient developed multifaceted postoperative complications, including cardiogenic shock, hemorrhagic shock, dyspnea, anemia, gastrointestinal abnormalities, and sepsis.  This case represents a highly complex patient scenario under the care of the cardiovascular anesthesiologist due to the nature of the procedure and numerous cardiovascular comorbidities, low ejection fraction, ICD placement, and malignant ventricular arrhythmia. We discuss the various perioperative management strategies and how they are tailored to such patients, including pharmacologic intervention, anesthesia administration, imaging modalities, and postoperative care. The purpose of this case report is to delineate the role of Impella 5.5 in perioperative care for high-risk VT ablation patients. We discuss the progression, pathophysiology, and management of this patient's multisystem complications following the procedure. We also highlight the use of Impella 5.5 in the electrophysiology lab and the anesthesia considerations, safeguards, and management strategies to optimize perioperative outcomes and avoid complications.

Indexed as

cardiac anesthesiologyhigh-risk anesthesiaimpella 5.5impella monitoringintracardiac echocardiographyperioperativeventricular tachycardia ablation

Identifiers

PMID38770455
PMCPMC11103450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.