CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

Lower Risk of Heart Failure and Death in Patients Initiated on SGLT-2 Inhibitors Versus Other Glucose-Lowering Drugs: The CVD-REAL Study Percutaneous Atriotomy for Levoatrial–to–Coronary Sinus Shunting in Symptomatic Heart Failure: First-in-Human Experience Dapagliflozin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Left Ventricular Assist Device as a Bridge to Recovery for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Pathophysiology: Why Women Are Overrepresented in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America Left Ventricular Assist Devices for Lifelong Support Cardiovascular Events Associated With SGLT-2 Inhibitors Versus Other Glucose-Lowering Drugs: The CVD-REAL 2 Study

Review Article2020 Sep 21;S0033-0620(20)30158-4.

JOURNAL:Prog Cardiovasc Dis. Article Link

Mechanical circulatory support devices in advanced heart failure: 2020 and beyond

JL Vieira, HO Ventura, MR Mehra et al. Keywords: advanced heart failure; cardiogenic shock; hemocompatibility; INTERMACS; LVAD; left ventricular assist device; mechanical circulatory support

ABSTRACT

Substantial progress in the field of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has expanded the treatment options for patients with advanced-stage heart failure (HF). Currently available MCS devices can be implanted percutaneously or surgically. They can also be configured to support the left, right, or both ventricles, offering varying levels of circulatory support. Short-term temporary MCS devices are primarily used in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiogenic shock, and post-cardiac arrest, while durable left ventricular assist systems (LVAS) are increasingly utilized either as a bridge-to-transplant, bridge to decision, or as a destination therapy. The evolution from older pulsatile devices to continuous-flow LVAS and the incorporation of smaller pumps, with no valves, fewer moving parts, and improved hemocompatibility has translated into improved clinical outcomes, greater durability, fewer adverse events, and reduced overall cost of care. However, despite marked advances in device design and clinical management, determining MCS candidacy is often difficult and requires the integration of clinical, biomarker, imaging, exercise, and hemodynamic data. This review aims to provide a summary of the current use of short-term and durable MCS devices in the treatment of advanced-stage HF, highlighting several aspects of LVAS support and the challenges that remain.