ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Daniel Y. Loisance
Philippe H. Deleuze
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Loisance, D. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Mourtada, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Loisance, D. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Mourtada, A.

Ann Thorac Surg 1996;61:388-390
© 1996 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Patient Selection: Too Early Versus Too Late For Bridge

Mechanical Bridge to Transplantation: When Is Too Early? When Is Too Late?

Daniel Y. Loisance, MD, Frédéric Pouillart, MD, Christophe Benvenuti, MD, Philippe H. Deleuze, MD, Jean-Philippe Mazzucotelli, MD, Paul Le Besnerais, MD, Ali Mourtada, MD

Departments of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Cardiology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité de Recherche Associée 1431, Hospital Henri Mondor, Creteil, France

Abstract

Background. Optimal timing of implantation of a mechanical circulatory support system in the treatment of acute cardiogenic shock is still unsettled. The issue has been addressed in a retrospective analysis of a group of 98 patients in cardiogenic shock refractory to medical therapy who were candidates for cardiac transplantation, admitted from 1987 to 1994.

Methods. The treatment included reinforced inotropic support by addition of phosphodiesterase inhibitors to sympathomimetic agents. The patients who did not improve were immediately brought to the operating room for mechanical circulatory support system implantation.

Results. The overall survival in the group of 28 patients selected for mechanical bridge is 50%. No predictive factors of death or multiorgan failure while on the device could be identified, suggesting a lack of contraindications to mechanical circulatory support system implantation.

Conclusions. The high death rate in patients maintained on medical therapy because of initial improvement as they are awaiting transplantation suggests the benefit of a rapid semielective implantation of an intracorporeal device.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
M. Kirsch, E. Vermes, C. Radu, B. Streich, K. Nakashima, A. Mekontso-Dessap, and D. Loisance
Impact of preoperative hemodynamic support on early outcome in patients assisted with paracorporeal Thoratec((R)) ventricular assist device.
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., August 1, 2008; 34(2): 262 - 267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PerfusionHome page
A K Mahmood, J M Courtney, S Westaby, M Akdis, and H Reul
Critical review of current left ventricular assist devices
Perfusion, September 1, 2000; 15(5): 399 - 420.
[PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
S. J. Park, D. Q. Nguyen, A. J. Bank, S. Ormaza, and R. M. Bolman III
Left ventricular assist device bridge therapy for acute myocardial infarction
Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2000; 69(4): 1146 - 1151.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 1996 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.