LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

The tightrope walk between temporary and permanent mechanical circulatory support.

Photo from wikipedia

In recent years, tremendous progress has been made in treatment and management of chronic heart failure, with novel drugs and devices contributing to reduced mortality and improved quality of life.… Click to show full abstract

In recent years, tremendous progress has been made in treatment and management of chronic heart failure, with novel drugs and devices contributing to reduced mortality and improved quality of life. In contrast, acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock have seen no such advancement in therapy and lack large positive outcome trials (1,2). Concomitantly, there is a strong rise in the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for cardiogenic shock (3,4), and some centers also implant permanent left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) at INTERMACS stages 1 to 3 (5). Yet, evidence from randomized controlled trials for temporary or permanent MCS remains limited, not at least because controlled MCS studies in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock are admittedly difficult to conduct and to interpret. Therefore, MCS decision making in acute cardiac conditions is still largely based on experience and sometimes empiricism, and bridging and weaning strategies vary between centers. In this context, we read with great interest the report of Osswald and colleagues (6).

Keywords: circulatory support; mechanical circulatory; heart failure; temporary permanent

Journal Title: Journal of thoracic disease
Year Published: 2019

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.