scholarly journals Using aortic arch short axis views during transesophageal echocardiographic examination facilitates right ventricular assist device imaging

Author(s):  
Alyssa Tutunjian ◽  
Jamel Ortoleva ◽  
Yong Zhan ◽  
Frederick Chen ◽  
Gregory Couper ◽  
...  

Given the increased need for mechanical circulatory support and subsequent development of right ventricular assist devices (RVAD), appropriate imaging needs to be described to facilitate care in patients with cardiogenic shock and heart failure. We present three cases in which the upper esophageal aortic arch short axis (UE AA SAX) view on transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was utilized to effectively image RVADs: to confirm normal positioning, to detect and guide repositioning, and to visualize malfunction. These cases support the importance of the UE AA SAX TEE view in RVAD outflow imaging and, when obtainable, should be included in routine RVAD assessment.

2014 ◽  
Vol 8s1 ◽  
pp. CMC.S15718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisha A. Gilotra ◽  
Gerin R. Stevens

Cardiogenic shock remains a challenging disease entity and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be implemented in an acute setting to stabilize acutely ill patients with cardiomyopathy in a variety of clinical situations. Currently, several options exist for temporary MCS. We review the indications, contraindications, clinical applications, and evidences for a variety of temporary circulatory support options, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), CentriMag blood pump, and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), specifically the TandemHeart and Impella.


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-433
Author(s):  
Emalie Petersen

Heart failure is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Treatment of this condition increasingly involves mechanical circulatory support devices. Even with optimal medical therapy and use of simple cardiac devices, heart failure often leads to reduced quality of life and a shortened life span, prompting exploration of more advanced treatment approaches. Left ventricular assist devices constitute an effective alternative to cardiac transplantation. These devices are not without complications, however, and their use requires careful cooperative management by the patient’s cardiology team and primary care provider. Left ventricular assist devices have undergone many technological advancements since they were first introduced, and they will continue to evolve. This article reviews the history of different types of left ventricular assist devices, appropriate patient selection, and common complications in order to increase health professionals’ familiarity with these treatment options.


2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-182
Author(s):  
Sinan Sabit Kocabeyoglu ◽  
Umit Kervan ◽  
Dogan Emre Sert ◽  
Mehmet Karahan ◽  
Emre Aygun ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to examine the haemodynamic effects of preoperative levosimendan infusion in patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation and evaluate the prognoses. METHODS Between May 2013 and October 2018, 85 adult patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation were included; 44 and 41 patients suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy and ischaemic cardiomyopathy, respectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (58 patients) included those who received levosimendan infusion in addition to other inotropes and group B (27 patients) included those who received inotropic agents other than levosimendan. Levosimendan infusion was started at a dose of 0.1 µg⋅kg−1⋅min−1 for a maximum of 48 h without a bolus. The primary outcome was early right ventricular failure (RVF). The secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, need for right ventricular assist device, late RVF and recovery of end-organ functions. The safety end points of levosimendan included hypotension, atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation and resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant differences between groups were observed in the rates of early mortality, RVF, need for right ventricular assist device, cardiopulmonary bypass time and intensive care unit stay. Survival rates at 30 days, 1 year and 3 years and freedom from late RVF were similar between the groups. Administration of levosimendan was safe, generally well-tolerated and not interrupted because of side effects. CONCLUSIONS Levosimendan therapy was well-tolerated in patients who received permanent left ventricular assist devices. Combined preoperative therapy with inotropes and levosimendan significantly improves end-organ functions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document