Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinical review evaluates mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock, highlighting trade-offs between hemodynamic benefit and adverse device complications.
Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and clinicians have increasingly used short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) over the last 15 years to manage outcomes. In general, the provision of greater hemodynamic support comes with device platforms that are more complex and potentially associated with more adverse events. In this review, we compare and contrast the available percutaneous and surgically placed device types used in cardiogenic shock and discuss the associated clinical and hemodynamic data to support device use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Telukuntla et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: