RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex life-threatening condition that results from primary cardiac dysfunction, leading to persistent hypotension and systemic hypoperfusion. Among the therapeutic options for CS are various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that have emerged as an increasingly effective hemodynamic support option. Percutaneous therapies can act as short-term mechanical circulatory assistance and can be split into intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and non-IABP percutaneous mechanical devices. AREAS COVERED: This review will evaluate the MCS value while considering the mortality rate improvements. We also aim to outline the function of pharmacotherapies and percutaneous hemodynamic MCS devices in managing CS patients to avoid the onset of end-organ dysfunction and improve both early and late outcomes. EXPERT OPINION: Given the complexity, acuity and high mortality associated with CS, and despite the availability and efficacy of pharmacological management, MCS is required to achieve hemodynamic stability and improve survival. Various percutaneous MCS devices are available with varying indications and clinical outcomes. The rates of early mortality and complications were found to be comparable between the four devices, yet, IABP seemed to show the most optimal clinical profile whilst ECMO demonstrated its more long-term efficacy.
Asunto(s)
Hemodinámica , Contrapulsador Intraaórtico , Choque Cardiogénico , Humanos , Choque Cardiogénico/terapia , Contrapulsador Intraaórtico/instrumentación , Corazón Auxiliar , Oxigenación por Membrana Extracorpórea/instrumentaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Frozen elephant trunk has in recent times become a mainstay for total arch replacement in aortovascular surgery and is indicated to treat a spectrum of complex aortic pathologies. However, despite associated excellent postoperative results it is incredibly important to recognize potential adverse complications such as negative aortic remodeling, endoleak, and distal stent-graft induced new entry so that outcomes can be further improved. AIM OF THE STUDY: Below we provide commentary on a recent article in the Journal of Cardiac Surgery discussing the topic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fascinating outcomes of this systematic review and meta-analysis the heterogeneity of the literature regarding these adverse outcomes remains an issue which can only be solved with large multicenter trials directly comparing graft types as well as indications for surgery.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica , Disección Aórtica , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Disección Aórtica/etiología , Disección Aórtica/cirugía , Aorta Torácica/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/etiología , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/cirugía , Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular/métodos , Endofuga/etiología , Humanos , StentsRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD) is still managed conservatively with optimal medical therapy (OMT) despite evidence in favour of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for un-TBAD. OMT aims to regulate heart rate and blood pressure and patients require long-term follow-up to evaluate the extent of dissection, however, many un-TBAD patients are lost to follow-up. Several trials and observational studies evaluated the use of TEVAR in combination with OMT in un-TBAD and proved the safety, effectiveness, and comparability of TEVAR relative to OMT alone. What remains in question is the optimal time window to intervene with TEVAR. This was recently addressed in a fascinating review by Jubouri et al. AIMS: This commentary aims to discuss the recent review by Jubouri et al. which further proved that TEVAR is safe and effective in un-TABD and investigated the optimal timing of TEVAR in un-TBAD. MATERIALS & METHODS: We carried out a literature search using multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus in order to collate research evidence on intervention timeframe and outcomes of TEVAR in un-TBAD. RESULTS: Performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection (15-90 days since symptom onset) seems to be associated with less periprocedural complications compared to the acute phase, however, late outcomes (>30 days post-TEVAR) are comparable between the two groups and are superior to the chronic phase. DISCUSSION: The introduction of TEVAR in un-TBAD presents a paradigm shift in the management of un-TBAD and a potential move towards becoming the gold-standard treatment option for un-TBAD. Intervening with TEVAR within the first 90 days since symptom onset (acute and subacute un-TBAD) gives favourable outcomes relative to intervention in the chronic phase of dissection (>90 days since symptom onset), this is due to the dissecting septum becoming less compliant over time. CONCLUSION: TEVAR is a safe and effective treatment modality for un-TBAD with a survival benefit compared to OMT alone. Offering TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection yields optimal results which are comparable to the acute phase but superior to the chronic phase.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica , Disección Aórtica , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Procedimientos Endovasculares , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/cirugía , Procedimientos Endovasculares/métodos , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The introduction of the single-step total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) has revolutionised the field of aortic surgery. TAR is indicated when the aortic arch is involved in aortic pathologies such as Type A aortic dissection and thoracic aortic aneurysms. Several FET devices are available commercially for global use, and example is the E-Vita Open NEO hybrid prosthesis (HP) developed by CryoLife-JOTEC. Unlike other FET devices available, this HP in particular features a design that puts it at a disadvantage as it does not incorporate gelatine or collagen in its structure, which makes it permeable to blood. Several studies have reported incidence of post-anastomotic blood oozing through the E-Vita Open NEO right after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass. AIMS: This commentary aims to discuss the recent study by Tan et al. which investigated E-Vita NEO device oozing as well as the implications of using BioGlue to overcome this serious complications. METHODS: We carried out a literature search on multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus in order to collate research evidence on E-Vita NEO device oozing, BioGlue health risks, and other commercially available and globally used FET devices such as Thoraflex Hybrid. RESULTS: It is proven fact that the E-Vita NEO excessively oozes blood, and while BioGlue is a safe and effective agent when used in small amounts, the amount needed to coat the E-Vita Open NEO and achieve haemostasis exceeds this by a wide margin which poses patients to great potential health risks. The Thoraflex Hybrid Prosthesis developed by Terumo Aortic is a commercially available and globally used FET device with long-standing favourable outcomes. DISCUSSION: Tan et al. recently conducted an interesting study which proved that the E-Vita NEO HP does excessively ooze blood and tackled the issue of pre-emptive BioGlue use to tackle this complication as suggested by Ho et al. This leads on to the main question, is the use of BioGlue with E-Vita Open NEO to overcome oozing a long-term sustainable solution or is it merely a band aid? CONCLUSION: In the face of fierce commercial competition, the choice of design and material of the E-Vita Open NEO HP would benefit from reconsideration.
Asunto(s)
Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica , Disección Aórtica , Implantación de Prótesis Vascular , Disección Aórtica/cirugía , Aorta Torácica/cirugía , Aneurisma de la Aorta Torácica/cirugía , Prótesis Vascular , Humanos , Proteínas , Estudios Retrospectivos , StentsRESUMEN
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has quickly become the mainstay of treatment for acute aortic dissection, in particular cases of acute complicated Stanford Type B dissection (co-TBAD). Necessarily, TEVAR carries with it the risk of postoperative complications, including stroke and renal failure. As a result, the management of patients with uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un-TBAD), which is generally accepted as being less severe, is safely managed via optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. However, despite OMT, patients with un-TBAD are at substantial risk of severe disease progression requiring delayed intervention. The cost-benefit ratio associated with TEVAR for un-TBAD is therefore of key interest. Howard and colleagues produced a fascinating systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the clinical outcomes of TEVAR for complicated and uncomplicated TBAD. Their data suggest that there is no significant difference in in-hospital mortality or 5-year survival between TEVAR for un-TBAD and co-TBAD, although the 30-day mortality rate appeared to be higher in the co-TBAD cohort. Patients with co-TBAD appeared to also be at a higher risk of postoperative stroke and TEVAR endoleak, while un-TBAD patients were at a higher risk of postoperative renal failure. Further prospective research into these relationships is recommended to fully elucidate the comparative efficacies of TEVAR for un-TBAD and co-TBAD.