Emergent percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass in patients having cardiovascular collapse in the cardiac catheterization laboratory
| Autor: | Ann Margulis, William W. O'Neill, Gregory S. Pavlides, G. Michael Deeb, David W. Grambow, Eric R. Bates |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 1994 |
| Předmět: |
Male
medicine.medical_specialty Resuscitation Cardiac Catheterization medicine.medical_treatment Shock Cardiogenic law.invention law Internal medicine Intensive care medicine Cardiopulmonary bypass Humans Angioplasty Balloon Coronary Cardiac catheterization Aged Retrospective Studies Cardiopulmonary Bypass business.industry Cardiogenic shock Middle Aged medicine.disease Cardiac surgery Heart Arrest Blood pressure Shock (circulatory) Cardiology Female medicine.symptom Emergencies Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business Follow-Up Studies |
| Zdroj: | The American journal of cardiology. 73(12) |
| ISSN: | 0002-9149 |
| Popis: | Percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass (PCB) was instituted in 30 initially stable patients who developed either cardiac arrest refractory to resuscitation (n = 7) or cardiogenic shock (mean arterial blood pressure < 50 mm Hg unresponsive to fluid resuscitation or vasopressors) (n = 23) after a catheterization laboratory complication. Events leading to collapse included abrupt closure during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) (n = 22), complications from diagnostic cardiac catheterization (n = 6), left ventricular perforation during mitral valvuloplasty (n = 1), and right ventricular perforation during pericardiocentesis (n = 1). PCB was initiated within 20 minutes of cardiovascular collapse in 83% of patients (arrest: 21 +/- 13 minutes [range 10 to 50]; and shock: 17 +/- 6 minutes [range 10 to 30]). Mean arterial blood pressure increased on PCB from 0 to 56 mm Hg in patients with cardiac arrest and from 37 to 63 mm Hg in those with cardiogenic shock at mean PCB flow rates of 2.5 to 5.0 liters/min. Subsequent therapy on PCB included emergent cardiac surgery (n = 14), PTCA (n = 13) and medical therapy (n = 3). Six patients (20%) survived to hospital discharge (3 with cardiac surgery, 2 with PTCA, and 1 with medical therapy). All 7 patients with refractory cardiac arrest died despite further interventions on PCB, whereas 6 of 23 (26%) with cardiogenic shock survived to hospital discharge. Thus, in response to cardiovascular collapse in the catheterization laboratory, PCB does not salvage patients who do not regain a stable cardiac rhythm. PCB can stabilize patients who develop cardiogenic shock for further interventions which are lifesaving in only a minority of patients. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|