• Jeans Miguel Santana, Adam A Dalia, Melinda Newton, Dominic V Pisano, Sarah Eapen, Masashi Kawabori, and Jamel Ortoleva.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2022 Aug 1; 36 (8 Pt B): 3318-3326.

AbstractMechanical circulatory support (MCS) is used in cardiogenic shock for periprocedural hemodynamic stability in high-risk patients and to support patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease. Depending on the MCS type, oxygenation and ventilation, in addition to increasing blood pressure by augmenting blood flow, can be achieved. MCS typically follows a failure of less invasive maneuvers or intolerance to them, such as significant ventricular arrhythmia burden from inotropic support. MCS options include intra-aortic balloon pump, transvalvular percutaneous left ventricular assist devices, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and surgically implanted left ventricular assist devices. The number of MCS options has increased, and this has made the decision-making process complicated. MCS decision-making is complex, even in patients without valvular pathology. The presence of aortic valve (AV) abnormalities, such as aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency, replaced AVs, or AV masses, adds even further to the challenge of selecting the appropriate support strategy. In this narrative review, a concise review of MCS options and the special considerations for various AV pathologies are presented.Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…