: Ventricular septal rupture (VSR) represents a rare complication of acute myocardial infarction, often presenting with cardiogenic shock and associated with high in-hospital mortality despite prompt intervention. Although immediate surgery is recommended for patients who cannot be effectively stabilized, the ideal timing of intervention remains controversial. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may allow hemodynamic stabilization and delay definitive treatment even in critical patients. However, the interactions between MCS and VSR pathophysiology as well as potentially related adverse effects remain unclear. A systematic review was performed, from 2000 onward, to identify reports describing MCS types, effects, complications, and outcomes in the pre-operative VSR-related setting. One hundred eleven studies (2,440 patients) were included. Most patients had well-known negative predictors (e.g., cardiogenic shock, inferior infarction). Almost all patients had intra-aortic balloon pumps, with additional MCS adopted in 129 patients (77.5% being venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Mean MCS bridging time was 6 days (range: 0 to 23 days). In-hospital mortality was 50.4%, with the lowest mortality rate in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation group (29.2%). MCS may enhance hemodynamic stabilization and delayed VSR treatment. However, the actual effects and interaction of the MCS-VSR association should be carefully assessed to avoid further complications or incorrect MCS-VSR coupling.

Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge to Definitive Treatment in Post-Infarction Ventricular Septal Rupture

Ronco, Daniele;Matteucci, Matteo;Torchio, Federica;Corazzari, Claudio;Beghi, Cesare;
2021

Abstract

: Ventricular septal rupture (VSR) represents a rare complication of acute myocardial infarction, often presenting with cardiogenic shock and associated with high in-hospital mortality despite prompt intervention. Although immediate surgery is recommended for patients who cannot be effectively stabilized, the ideal timing of intervention remains controversial. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may allow hemodynamic stabilization and delay definitive treatment even in critical patients. However, the interactions between MCS and VSR pathophysiology as well as potentially related adverse effects remain unclear. A systematic review was performed, from 2000 onward, to identify reports describing MCS types, effects, complications, and outcomes in the pre-operative VSR-related setting. One hundred eleven studies (2,440 patients) were included. Most patients had well-known negative predictors (e.g., cardiogenic shock, inferior infarction). Almost all patients had intra-aortic balloon pumps, with additional MCS adopted in 129 patients (77.5% being venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Mean MCS bridging time was 6 days (range: 0 to 23 days). In-hospital mortality was 50.4%, with the lowest mortality rate in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation group (29.2%). MCS may enhance hemodynamic stabilization and delayed VSR treatment. However, the actual effects and interaction of the MCS-VSR association should be carefully assessed to avoid further complications or incorrect MCS-VSR coupling.
extracorporeal life support; heart rupture; mechanical circulatory support; myocardial infarction; ventricular septal rupture; Humans; Shock, Cardiogenic; Treatment Outcome; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Myocardial Infarction; Ventricular Septal Rupture
Ronco, Daniele; Matteucci, Matteo; Ravaux, Justine M; Marra, Silvia; Torchio, Federica; Corazzari, Claudio; Massimi, Giulio; Beghi, Cesare; Maessen, Jos; Lorusso, Roberto
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11383/2130470
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 9
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact