Discussion of hemodynamic optimization strategies and the canonical understanding of hemodynamics during biventricular mechanical support in cardiogenic shock: does the flow balance make the difference?
Cardiogenic shock
Hemodynamic monitoring
Mechanical circulatory support
Organ perfusion
Journal
Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society
ISSN: 1861-0692
Titre abrégé: Clin Res Cardiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101264123
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
08
08
2023
accepted:
10
01
2024
pubmed:
23
1
2024
medline:
23
1
2024
entrez:
23
1
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may stabilize patients with severe cardiogenic shock (CS) following myocardial infarction (MI). However, the canonical understanding of hemodynamics related to the determination of the native cardiac output (CO) does not explain or support the understanding of combined left and right MCS. To ensure the most optimal therapy control, the current principles of hemodynamic measurements during biventricular support should be re-evaluated. Here we report a protocol of hemodynamic optimization strategy during biventricular MCS (VA-ECMO and left ventricular Impella) in a case series of 10 consecutive patients with severe cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. During the protocol, the flow rates of both devices were switched in opposing directions (+ / - 0.7 l/min) for specified times. To address the limitations of existing hemodynamic measurement strategies during biventricular support, different measurement techniques (thermodilution, Fick principle, mixed venous oxygen saturation) were performed by pulmonary artery catheterization. Additionally, Doppler ultrasound was performed to determine the renal resistive index (RRI) as an indicator of renal perfusion. The comparison between condition 1 (ECMO flow > Impella flow) and condition 2 (Impella flow > VA-ECMO flow) revealed significant changes in hemodynamics. In detail, compared to condition 1, condition 2 results in a significant increase in cardiac output (3.86 ± 1.11 vs. 5.44 ± 1.13 l/min, p = 0.005) and cardiac index (2.04 ± 0.64 vs. 2.85 ± 0.69, p = 0.013), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (56.44 ± 6.97% vs. 62.02 ± 5.64% p = 0.049), whereas systemic vascular resistance decreased from 1618 ± 337 to 1086 ± 306 s*cm To monitor and optimize MCS in CS, PA catheterization for hemodynamic measurement is applicable. Higher Impella flow is superior to higher VA-ECMO flow resulting in a more profound increase in CO with subsequent improvement of organ perfusion.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may stabilize patients with severe cardiogenic shock (CS) following myocardial infarction (MI). However, the canonical understanding of hemodynamics related to the determination of the native cardiac output (CO) does not explain or support the understanding of combined left and right MCS. To ensure the most optimal therapy control, the current principles of hemodynamic measurements during biventricular support should be re-evaluated.
METHODS
METHODS
Here we report a protocol of hemodynamic optimization strategy during biventricular MCS (VA-ECMO and left ventricular Impella) in a case series of 10 consecutive patients with severe cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. During the protocol, the flow rates of both devices were switched in opposing directions (+ / - 0.7 l/min) for specified times. To address the limitations of existing hemodynamic measurement strategies during biventricular support, different measurement techniques (thermodilution, Fick principle, mixed venous oxygen saturation) were performed by pulmonary artery catheterization. Additionally, Doppler ultrasound was performed to determine the renal resistive index (RRI) as an indicator of renal perfusion.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The comparison between condition 1 (ECMO flow > Impella flow) and condition 2 (Impella flow > VA-ECMO flow) revealed significant changes in hemodynamics. In detail, compared to condition 1, condition 2 results in a significant increase in cardiac output (3.86 ± 1.11 vs. 5.44 ± 1.13 l/min, p = 0.005) and cardiac index (2.04 ± 0.64 vs. 2.85 ± 0.69, p = 0.013), and mixed venous oxygen saturation (56.44 ± 6.97% vs. 62.02 ± 5.64% p = 0.049), whereas systemic vascular resistance decreased from 1618 ± 337 to 1086 ± 306 s*cm
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
To monitor and optimize MCS in CS, PA catheterization for hemodynamic measurement is applicable. Higher Impella flow is superior to higher VA-ECMO flow resulting in a more profound increase in CO with subsequent improvement of organ perfusion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38261027
doi: 10.1007/s00392-024-02377-7
pii: 10.1007/s00392-024-02377-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
602-611Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Becher PM, Schrage B, Sinning CR et al (2018) Venoarterial extracorporal membrane oxygenation for cardiopulmonary support. Circulation 138:2298–2300
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036691
pubmed: 30571518
Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S (2019) Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J 40:2671–2683
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz363
pubmed: 31274157
Schrage B, Burkhoff D, Rübsamen N et al (2018) Unloading of the left ventricle during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy in cardiogenic shock. JACC Heart Fail 6:1035–1043
doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.09.009
pubmed: 30497643
Vahdatpour C, Collins D, Goldberg S (2019) Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc 8(8):e011991
Schrage B, Becher P, Bernhardt A et al (2020) Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Circulation 142(22):2095–2106
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048792
pubmed: 33032450
pmcid: 7688081
Giraud R, Assouline B, Banfi C, Bendjelid K (2022) Impella combined with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for advanced hemodynamic support. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 23(1):003
doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2301003
Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M et al (2017) Concomitant implantation of Impella® on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 19:404–412
doi: 10.1002/ejhf.668
pubmed: 27709750
Patsalis N, Kreutz J, Chatzis G et al (2022) Renal protection and hemodynamic improvement by Impella® microaxial pump in patients with cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med 11(22):6817
doi: 10.3390/jcm11226817
pubmed: 36431294
pmcid: 9698353
Ohira S, Pan S, Levine A, Haidry SA, Aggawal-Gupta C, Lanier G, Gass A, De La Pena C, Goldberg JB, Spielvogel D, Kai M (2022) High flow from Impella 5.5 with partial veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: case series. Artif Organs. 46(6):1198–1203
doi: 10.1111/aor.14183
pubmed: 35106793
Vieillard-Baron A, Matthay M, Teboul JL, Bein T, Schultz M, Magder S et al (2016) Experts’ opinion on management of hemodynamics in ARDS patients: focus on the effects of mechanical ventilation. Intens Care Med 42:739–749
doi: 10.1007/s00134-016-4326-3
Stanger EJ, Berger DC, Jenni H, Bachmann KF (2023) Behaviour and stability of thermodilution signals in a closed extracorporeal circuit: a bench study. J Clin Monit Comput 37(4):1095–1102
doi: 10.1007/s10877-023-01018-0
pubmed: 37166694
pmcid: 10371883
Bhatia Meena, Katz Jason N (2020) Contemporary comprehensive monitoring of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients. Can J Cardiol 36(2):291–299
doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2019.10.031
pubmed: 31924449
Burkhoff D, Sayer G, Doshi D, Uriel N (2015) Hemodynamics of mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol 66(23):2663–2674
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.017
pubmed: 26670067
Loosen G, Conrad AM, Hagman M, Essert N, Thiel M, Luecke T, Krebs J (2021) Transpulmonary thermodilution in patients treated with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann Intensive Care 11(1):101
doi: 10.1186/s13613-021-00890-w
pubmed: 34213674
pmcid: 8249841
Thiele, Holger, and Uwe Zeymer (2018) Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute coronary syndromes, in Marco Tubaro, and others (eds), The ESC Textbook of Intensive and Acute Cardiovascular Care, 2 edn (Oxford, 2015; online edn, ESC Publications, 22 Feb. 2018)
Lim H (2023) The physiology of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: the Fick principle. Perfusion 38(2):236–244
doi: 10.1177/02676591211055971
pubmed: 34961381
Fotopoulou G, Poularas I, Kokkoris S et al (2022) Renal resistive index on intensive care unit admission correlates with tissue hypoperfusion indices and predicts clinical outcome. Shock 57(4):501–507
doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000001896
pubmed: 34864780
Cauwenberghs N, Kuznetsova T (2016) Determinants and prognostic significance of the renal resistive index. Pulse (Basel) 3:172–178
doi: 10.1159/000442445
pubmed: 27195237
Darmon M, Schortgen F, Vargas F et al (2011) Diagnostic accuracy of Doppler renal resistive index for reversibility of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 37:68–76
doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-2050-y
pubmed: 20862450
Tublin ME, Bude RO, Platt JF (2003) The resistive index in renal Doppler sonography: where do we stand? AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:885–892
doi: 10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800885
pubmed: 12646425
Haitsma Mulier JLG, Rozemeijer S, Röttgering JG, Spoelstra-de Man AME, Elbers PWG, Roel TP (2018) Renal resistive index as an early predictor and discriminator of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients; a prospective observational cohort study. PLoS ONE 13(6):e0197967
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197967
pubmed: 29889830
pmcid: 5995360
Pruijm M, Ponte B, Ackermann D et al (2013) Heritability, determinants and reference values of renal length: a family-based population study. Eur Radiol 23:2899–2905
doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2900-4
pubmed: 23712436
Markus B, Patsalis N, Chatzis G, Luesebrink U, Ahrens H, Schieffer B, Karatolios K (2020) (2020) Impact of microaxillar mechanical left ventricular support on renal resistive index in patients with cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: a pilot trial to predict renal organ dysfunction in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 9(2):158–163
doi: 10.1177/2048872619860218
pubmed: 31246097
Rao P, Khalpey Z, Smith R, Burkhoff D, Kociol RD (2018) Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest cardinal considerations for initiation and management. Circ: Heart Fail 11:e004905
pubmed: 30354364
Kapur NK, Reyelt L, Swain L, Esposito M, Qiao X, Annamalai S, Meyns B, Smalling R (2019) Mechanical left ventricular unloading to reduce infarct size during acute myocardial infarction: insight from preclinical and clinical studies. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 12(2):87–94
doi: 10.1007/s12265-019-09876-3
pubmed: 31016553
pmcid: 7608694
Zeymer U, Bueno H, Granger CB et al (2020) Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a document of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 9(2):183–197
doi: 10.1177/2048872619894254
pubmed: 32114774
Toledo C, Thomas G, Schold JD et al (2015) Renal resistive index and mortality in chronic kidney disease. Hypertension 66(2):382–388
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.115.05536
pubmed: 26077569
Ponte B, Pruijm M, Ackermann D et al (2014) Reference values and factors associated with renal resistive index in a family-based population study. Hypertension 63:136–142
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.02321
pubmed: 24126174
Lubas A, Kade G, Niemczyk S (2014) Renal resistive index as a marker of vascular damage in cardiovascular diseases. Int Urol Nephrol 46(2):395–402
doi: 10.1007/s11255-013-0528-6
pubmed: 23959401