Why the study?
Does a standby cardiopulmonary support policy provide effective hemodynamic rescue for catastrophic events during elective coronary interventions?
Does a standby cardiopulmonary support policy provide effective hemodynamic rescue for catastrophic events during elective coronary interventions?
Standby cardiopulmonary support provides effective hemodynamic rescue during elective coronary interventions, suggesting it should be available even for non-high-risk patients.
Supports standby CPS for rare emergencies in elective PCI; hypothesis-generating for broader implementation.
At our institution, elective coronary interventions are performed without formal surgical backup. Instead, a policy of "standby cardiopulmonary support" (CPS), and "next-available operating room" is used. Standby CPS requires a perfusionist dedicated to the catheterization laboratory with immediate access to CPS apparatus. Between January 1989 and June 1994 we performed 2,850 elective coronary interventions. Eleven patients (0.4%) required emergency CPS. None of these patients fell into a high-risk category for PTCA (i.e., sole circulation, ejection fraction <20%, unprotected left main). Eight of these (73%) had completion of their coronary intervention while on CPS in the catheterization laboratory. Three patients were sustained on CPS until an operating room became available. All patients required blood transfusions and sustained non-Q-wave myocardial infarctions. Two late in-hospital deaths occurred. Nine patients (82%) were successfully discharged. Standby CPS provides hemodynamic support for patients who sustain a potentially catastrophic event during coronary intervention. Our data suggest that this modality should not be limited to high-risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guarneri et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: