Experiences with Emergency Percutaneous Cardiopulmonary Support in In-hospital Cardiac Arrest or Cardiogenic Shock due to the Ischemic Heart Disease.
- Author:
Il RHEE
1
;
Sung Uk KWON
;
Kiick SUNG
;
Sung Woo CHO
;
Hyeon Cheol GWON
;
Young Tak LEE
;
Pyo Won PARK
;
Kay Hyun PARK
;
Sang Hoon LEE
Author Information
1. Cardiac and Vascular Center, Samsung Medical Center Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Korea. kiick.sung@samsung.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Percutaneous bypass;
Cardiac arrest;
Cardiogenic shock;
Ischemic heart disease
- MeSH:
Catheterization;
Catheters;
Emergencies*;
Femoral Artery;
Follow-Up Studies;
Heart Arrest*;
Hemodynamics;
Hemorrhage;
Humans;
Myocardial Ischemia*;
Perfusion;
Resuscitation;
Shock, Cardiogenic*;
Thorax;
Veins
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2006;39(3):201-207
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
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 reexploration. 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(r) (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN) was used in 7 patients and the self-priming, heparin-coated circuit of EBS(r) (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(r) (Medtronic inc. Minneapolis, MN) or the RMI(r) (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 PCIs under the cardiopulmonary support. The mean support time on the PCPS was 38+/-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+/-17 days after removing the PCPS and survived well with 31+/-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.
