A Comprehensive Review of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Varunsiri Atti(West Virginia University), Mahesh Anantha Narayanan(White River Technologies (United States)), Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, White River Health System, Batesville, AK, USA(West Virginia University), Brijesh Patel(West Virginia University), Sudarshan Balla(West Virginia University), Aleem Siddique(University of Nebraska Medical Center), Scott Lundgren(University of Nebraska Medical Center), Poonam Velagapudi(University of Nebraska Medical Center)
Heart International
January 1, 2022
Cited by 66Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

Treatment strategies to combat cardiogenic shock (CS) have remained stagnant over the past decade. Mortality rates among patients who suffer CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high at 50%. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have evolved as novel treatment strategies to restore systemic perfusion to allow cardiac recovery in the short term, or as durable support devices in refractory heart failure in the long term. Haemodynamic parameters derived from right heart catheterization assist in the selection of an appropriate MCS device and escalation of mechanical support where needed. Evidence favouring the use of one MCS device over another is scant. An intra-aortic balloon pump is the most commonly used short-term MCS device, despite providing only modest haemodynamic support. Impella CP® has been increasingly used for CS in recent times and remains an important focus of research for patients with AMI-CS. Among durable devices, Heartmate® 3 is the most widely used in the USA. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these MCS devices and to guide the operator for their use in CS. This article provides a brief overview of the types of currently available MCS devices and the indications for their use.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis