We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Ascending versus descending aortic balloon pumping: organ and myocardial perfusion during ischemia.
Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2000 October
BACKGROUND: The ICS-Supracor (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a preshaped ascending aorta balloon pump. We compared the effects of this catheter with the classical descending intraaortic balloon pump (IABP). The study focused on hemodynamic effects, myocardial blood flow in normal and ischemic regions, cerebral perfusion, and peripheral organ perfusion.
METHODS: We placed a stenosis on the lateral branch of the coronary artery to reduce flow 50% (sheep). Measurements included hemodynamic changes, myocardial blood flow, and organ flow (colored microspheres) at baseline, after stenosis, during IABP support, and during ICS support.
RESULTS: Counterpulsation with the ICS led to a significantly higher peak diastolic aortic augmentation than with the IABP (IABP, 99 +/- 14 mm Hg; ICS, 140 +/- 29 mm Hg; p = 0.003). There was no significant change in cerebral perfusion or peripheral organ perfusion. Myocardial blood perfusion was significantly increased by the IABP as well as the ICS. This effect was seen in ischemic and nonischemic regions (subendocardial and subepicardial). The ICS improved myocardial blood flow significantly more than the IABP (IABP, 0.65 +/- 0.1 mL/min/g; ICS, 0.94 +/- 0.06 mL/min/g; p = 0.0005).
CONCLUSIONS: The ICS increases myocardial blood flow in ischemic regions significantly more than the IABP, without impairment of cerebral flow. Assessment of vascular complications, peripherally and in the ascending aorta, has to await results of clinical trials.
METHODS: We placed a stenosis on the lateral branch of the coronary artery to reduce flow 50% (sheep). Measurements included hemodynamic changes, myocardial blood flow, and organ flow (colored microspheres) at baseline, after stenosis, during IABP support, and during ICS support.
RESULTS: Counterpulsation with the ICS led to a significantly higher peak diastolic aortic augmentation than with the IABP (IABP, 99 +/- 14 mm Hg; ICS, 140 +/- 29 mm Hg; p = 0.003). There was no significant change in cerebral perfusion or peripheral organ perfusion. Myocardial blood perfusion was significantly increased by the IABP as well as the ICS. This effect was seen in ischemic and nonischemic regions (subendocardial and subepicardial). The ICS improved myocardial blood flow significantly more than the IABP (IABP, 0.65 +/- 0.1 mL/min/g; ICS, 0.94 +/- 0.06 mL/min/g; p = 0.0005).
CONCLUSIONS: The ICS increases myocardial blood flow in ischemic regions significantly more than the IABP, without impairment of cerebral flow. Assessment of vascular complications, peripherally and in the ascending aorta, has to await results of clinical trials.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app