Advertisement

Kardiologische Systeme

  • Ralf WestenfeldEmail author
Chapter
  • 150 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die Mortalität im kardiogenen Schock verbleibt weiterhin im Bereich von 50 % trotz lebensrettender Maßnahmen, wie der frühen Revaskularisierung und des Einsatzes der intraaortalen Gegenpulsation, für die in prospektiven Studien keine Wirksamkeit belegt werden konnte (Aissaoui et al. 2012). Unabhängig von der weiterhin ungünstigen Prognose des kardiogenen Schocks hat sich im Wandel der Zeit die Population des kardiogenen Schocks verändert: Während zur Zeit des Landmark SHOCK Trials überwiegend ST-Hebungsinfarkte die Ursache für einen kardiogenen Schock repräsentierten (Hochman et al. 1999), so wuchs im Laufe der Jahre, auch infolge der Therapieerfolge bei der initialen Infarktbehandlung, die Gruppe der Patienten, bei denen der kardiogene Schock das Ende der Herzinsuffizienzspirale im Sinne einer akuten Dekompensation bei chronischer Herzinsuffizienz darstellt.

Literatur

  1. Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X, Charbonnier B, Schiele F, Lefevre T et al (2012) Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries. Eur Heart J 33(20):2535–2543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C, Morris LD, Kormos RL, Bhama J et al (2015) Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: the prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transplant 34(12):1549–1560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauersachs J, Arrigo M, Hilfiker-Kleiner D, Veltmann C, Coats AJ, Crespo-Leiro MG et al (2016) Current management of patients with severe acute peripartum cardiomyopathy: practical guidance from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Study Group on peripartum cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail 18:1096–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, Patel J, Arabia F, Moriguchi J et al (2014) Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg 97(2):610–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engstrom AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, Sjauw KD, Vis MM, Baan J et al (2011) The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the academic medical center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med 39(9):2072–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ezekowitz JA, Kaul P, Bakal JA, Armstrong PW, Welsh RC, McAlister FA (2009) Declining in-hospital mortality and increasing heart failure incidence in elderly patients with first myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 53(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ghio S, Gavazzi A, Campana C, Inserra C, Klersy C, Sebastiani R et al (2001) Independent and additive prognostic value of right ventricular systolic function and pulmonary artery pressure in patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 37(1):183–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD et al (1999) Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 341(9):625–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horn P, Saeed D, Akhyari P, Hilfiker-Kleiner D, Kelm M, Westenfeld R (2017) Complete recovery of fulminant peripartum cardiomyopathy on mechanical circulatory support combined with high-dose bromocriptine therapy. ESC Heart Fail. 4:641–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs AK, Leopold JA, Bates E, Mendes LA, Sleeper LA, White H et al (2003) Cardiogenic shock caused by right ventricular infarction: a report from the SHOCK registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 41(8):1273–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kapur NK, Paruchuri V, Jagannathan A, Steinberg D, Chakrabarti AK, Pinto D et al (2013) Mechanical circulatory support for right ventricular failure. JACC Heart Fail 1(2):127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kapur NK, Paruchuri V, Pham DT, Reyelt L, Murphy B, Beale C et al (2015) Hemodynamic effects of left atrial or left ventricular cannulation for acute circulatory support in a bovine model of left heart injury. ASAIO J 61(3):301–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kapur NK, Alkhouli MA, DeMartini TJ, Faraz H, George ZH, Goodwin MJ et al (2019) Unloading the left ventricle before reperfusion in patients with Anterior ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 139(3):337–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kormos RL, Teuteberg JJ, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Miller LW et al (2010) Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: incidence, risk factors, and effect on out-comes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139(5):1316–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuchibhotla S, Esposito ML, Breton C, Pedicini R, Mullin A, O’Kelly R et al (2017) Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 6(10):pii: e006670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lauten A, Engstrom AE, Jung C, Empen K, Erne P, Cook S et al (2013) Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail 6(1):23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mehra MR, Goldstein DJ, Uriel N, Cleveland JC Jr, Yuzefpolskaya M, Salerno C et al (2018) Two-year outcomes with a magnetically levitated cardiac pump in heart failure. N Engl J Med 378(15):1386–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, Henriques JP, Dixon s, Massaro J et al (2012) A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation 126(14):1717–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, van Dongen IM, Hirsch A, Packer EJ et al (2017) Impella CP versus intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The IMPRESS in Severe Shock trial. J Am Coll Card 69:278–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ramanathan K, Farkouh ME, Cosmi JE, French JK, Harkness SM, Dzavik V et al (2011) Rapid complete reversal of systemic hypoperfusion after intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation and survival in cardiogenic shock complicating an acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 162(2):268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, Szeto WY, Burke JA, Kapur NK et al (2015) SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care. J Card Fail 21:499–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rogers JG, O’Connor CM (2014) The changing landscape of advanced heart failure therapeutics. J Am Coll Cardiol 64(14):1416–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schäfer A, Werner N, Westenfeld R, Møller JE, Schulze PC, Karatolios K et al (2019) Clinical scenarios for use of transvalvular microaxial pumps in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock – a European experienced users working group opinion. Int J Cardiol 15(291):96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning J-M, Pappalardo F et al (2019) Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a matched-pair IABP- SHOCK II trial 30-day mortality analysis. Circulation 139:1249–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, Frohlich G, Bott-Flugel L, Byrne R et al (2008) A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(19):1584–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sundaravel S, Alrifai A, Kabach M, Ghumman W (2017) FOLFOX induced Takotsubo cardiomyopathy treated with Impella assist device. Case Rep Cardiol 2017:8507096PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, Diederich KW, Hambrecht R, Niebauer J et al (2005) Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 26(13):1276–1283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thiele H, Allam B, Chatellier G, Schuler G, Lafont A (2010) Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials? Eur Heart J 31:1828–1835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J et al (2012) Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 367(14):1287–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, Jneid H, Latif F, Karrowni W et al (2016) Temporal trends and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: a report from the CathPCI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UK DüsseldorfDüsseldorfDeutschland

Personalised recommendations