These findings indicate that Impella device is a safe means of support of LV-function without detrimental long-term effects on the structural integrity of LV valves regardless of the size of the device or the indication of support. Neither the duration of support, nor the size of the Impella device or the indication for its use revealed any devastating impact on aortic or mitral valve integrity. pre-implantation), we observed a statistically significant decrease in LV dilation (p < 0.001) and severity of mitral valve regurgitation (p = 0.007) in the two-year follow-up period, suggesting an improved LV architecture. Beside a significant increase in LV ejection fraction after two years (p ≤ 0.03 vs. Thus, 84 consecutive patients were monitored over two years having received ImpellaTM CP (n = 24) or 2.5 (n = 60) for refractory CS (n = 62) or for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (n = 22) followed by optimal medical treatment. Therefore, we aimed to study the integrity of the LV valves and architecture and function after Impella support. Device-related access-site complications occurred more frequently in patients with ECLS than Impella support.Īlthough the use of microaxilar mechanical circulatory support systems may improve the outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), little is known about its effect on the long-term structural integrity of left ventricular (LV) valves as well as on the development of LV-architecture. Impella patients had a greater LVEF improvement than ECLS patients. In conclusion, the use of Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS in post-cardiac arrest CS after AMI was associated with comparable adjusted hospital and 12-month survival. Impella patients had a significantly greater left ventricle ejection-fraction (LVEF) improvement at 96 h (p 182). After adjustment for baseline differences, both groups demonstrated comparable hospital and 12-month survival (p = 0.36 and p = 0.64, respectively). Hospital and 12-month survival rates were comparable in the Impella and the ECLS groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.3, respectively). 159 patients were included (Impella, n = 105 ECLS, n = 54). Outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Patients were supported either with Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS. This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with post-cardiac arrest CS following AMI (May 2015 to May 2020). Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This raises awareness of the importance of AF and its treatment, as this seems to be a promising key point for improving the prognosis of TMVR patients. Rhythm control achieved almost exclusively pharmacologically is associated with an adverse outcome compared to the rate control of AF in TMVR. The adverse outcome of concomitant AF in TMVR patients was confirmed (AF: 47.3% (126/266) vs. Amiodarone was used to a substantial extent for rhythm control and found to be an independent mortality predictor (Hazard Ratio 1.5, 95%CI 1.1-2.1, p = 0.04). At 3 years, significantly reduced cumulative survival was observed for patients on rhythm compared to patients on rate control (46.7% (75/161) vs. Of these patients, 212 (59%) were on rate control therapy and 161 (41%) were on rhythm control therapy. In the analyzed cohort, 373 (73.3%) of the TMVR patients had concomitant AF. In a multicenter, observational cohort study, 542 consecutive patients undergoing TMVR were enrolled, and subsequently, comprehensive survival analyses according to AF status and therapy were performed using propensity score matching and Cox regression. However, data on the impact of AF treatment strategy in this rapidly growing cohort of patients is unknown. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a highly prevalent comorbidity in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR) undergoing transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) and has been shown to significantly worsen their outcome.
0 kommentar(er)
