Skip to main content
Log in

Perkutane mechanische Kreislaufunterstützung

Möglichkeiten und Stellenwert

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support

Options and importance

  • Schwerpunkt
  • Published:
Der Internist Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Wenn die konventionelle Therapie bei akuter oder chronischer Herzinsuffizienz nicht ausreicht, um eine adäquate Organperfusion zu gewährleisten, kann eine mechanische Unterstützung des linken Ventrikels die einzig lebensrettende Option sein. In den letzten Jahren sind zahlreiche, konzeptionell verschiedene perkutane mechanische Unterstützungssysteme entwickelt worden, die sich für die interventionelle Kardiologie und Intensivmedizin eignen. Das Indikationsspektrum perkutaner Unterstützungssysteme reicht vom primärprophylaktischen Einsatz bei komplexen Herzkatheterprozeduren über eine längerfristige Überbrückungstherapie bis hin zur Erholung, Transplantation oder dauerhaften mechanischen Unterstützung. Die Anwendung der intraaortalen Ballongegenpulsation kann im ischämischen kardiogenen Schock mangels Effektivität nicht mehr als Standardtherapie angesehen werden. Entsprechend werden für diese Indikation andere perkutane Systeme wie Mikroaxialpumpen sowie extrakorporale Membranoxygenierungs- bzw. Kreislaufunterstützungssysteme zur Linksherzunterstützung attraktiver, weil deren Wirkung auf die Hämodynamik überzeugender ist. Mit zunehmender Unterstützung steigt aber auch die Komplikationsrate aufgrund größerer Invasivität und Komplexität der Systeme. Die z. T. nicht unerheblichen Risiken sowie die Vorteile müssen aufgrund fehlender großer Studien individuell im Vergleich zur konventionellen Therapie mit hoch dosierten Inotropika abgewogen werden. In diesem Beitrag werden verschiedene Möglichkeiten und Besonderheiten der perkutanen Kreislaufunterstützung für das Herzkatheterlabor und die internistische Intensivstation zusammengefasst.

Abstract

In cases of low cardiac output and chronic cardiac failure despite conventional therapy, mechanical circulatory support may be the only option to ensure adequate organ perfusion and to save the life of the patient. In recent years, several conceptionally different methods of circulatory support have been developed for percutaneous application in interventional cardiology and intensive care. Indications range from elective use in complex cardiac interventions to long-term support as a bridge to recovery. As intra-aortic balloon pump support can no longer be considered for routine use in ischemic cardiogenic shock, micro-axial pumps for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and extracorporeal life support systems (ECMO/ECLS) gain attractiveness due to a more convincing impact on the hemodynamics. However, an increasing level of support is paralleled by greater invasiveness and complexity of the systems. Due to a lack of larger comparative trials, the benefits and risks of adverse events must be balanced against those of conventional therapy with inotropes and largely on an individual basis. This review summarizes the options for percutaneous circulatory support with special consideration to applications in the catheter laboratory and intensive care units in internal medicine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Literatur

  1. Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM et al (2007) ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol 50:e1–e157

  2. Beurtheret S, Mordant P, Pavie A et al (2012) Impella and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a demanding combination. ASAIO J 58:291–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Burkhoff D, Naidu SS (2012) The science behind percutaneous hemodynamic support: a review and comparison of support strategies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80:816–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng JM, Den Uil CA, Hoeks SE et al (2009) Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 30:2102–2108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Christiansen S, Brose S, Demircan L et al (2003) A new right ventricular assist device for right ventricular support. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 24:834–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Henriques JP, Ouweneel DM, Naidu SS et al (2014) Evaluating the learning curve in the prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a prespecified subanalysis of the PROTECT II study. Am Heart J 167:472–479.e475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoefer D, Ruttmann E, Poelzl G et al (2006) Outcome evaluation of the bridge-to-bridge concept in patients with cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 82:28–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS et al (2011) The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:688–696

  9. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC et al (2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 124:e574–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McMurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD et al (2012) ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 33:1787–1847

    Google Scholar 

  11. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD et al (2013) 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 127:e362–e425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses 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 126:1717–1727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Perera D, Stables R, Clayton T et al (2013) Long-term mortality data from the balloon pump-assisted coronary intervention study (BCIS-1): a randomized, controlled trial of elective balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation 127:207–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M et al (2010) Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 304:867–874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pfeifer R, Ferrari M, Borner A et al (2008) Serum concentration of NSE and S-100b during LVAD in non-resuscitated patients. Resuscitation 79:46–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Reitan O, Steen S, Ohlin H (2003) Hemodynamic effects of a new percutaneous circulatory support device in a left ventricular failure model. ASAIO J 49:731–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I 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 52:1584–1588

  18. Sheu JJ, Tsai TH, Lee FY et al (2010) Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med 38:1810–1817

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D et al (2012) ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 33:2569–2619

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ et al (2013) Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 382:1638–1645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ et al (2012) Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 367:1287–1296

  22. Westaby S, Anastasiadis K, Wieselthaler GM (2012) Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 2: role of mechanical circulatory support. Nat Rev Cardiol 9:195–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Westaby S, Kharbanda R, Banning AP (2012) Cardiogenic shock in ACS. Part 1: prediction, presentation and medical therapy. Nat Rev Cardiol 9:158–171

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N et al (2010) Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 31:2501–2555

    Google Scholar 

  25. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F et al (2014) 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J (im Druck)

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. T. Seidler gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Seidler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seidler, T. Perkutane mechanische Kreislaufunterstützung. Internist 55, 1267–1277 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-014-3505-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00108-014-3505-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation