MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4284888413 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2022.07.001

Reply from authors: Defining ventricular distension on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and triggers to intervene

2022· article· en· W4284888413 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Yiorgos Alexandros Cavayas, Pierre‐Emmanuel Noly, Gurmeet Singh, Yoan Lamarche

Notice bibliographique

RevueJTCVS Open · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Établissements canadiensUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalCanadian VIGOUR CentreMontreal Heart Institute
Organismes subventionnairesFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
Mots-clésExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationCardiogenic shockDistensionMedicineLife supportCardiologyExtracorporealInterimInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dr Cavayas received honoraria for lectures from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec–Santé . All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.We thank you for your kind words and your thoughtful comments.1Meani P. Kowalewski M. Raffa G.M. Lorusso R. Unloading the left ventricle in venoarterial extracorporeal life support: the urgent need of speaking the same language.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. May 14, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Google Scholar We completely agree that left ventricular (LV) distension can result in catastrophic effects such as thrombus formation, compromise LV recovery, and that its importance should be emphasized in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A commonly agreed-upon definition of LV distension is central to future research efforts aiming to provide evidence-based management strategies. The very comprehensive definition of LV distension you propose should be adopted in that sense, as proposed in the latest version of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Guidelines.2Lorusso R. Shekar K. MacLaren G. Schmidt M. Pellegrino V. Meyns B. et al.ELSO interim guidelines for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult cardiac patients.ASAIO J. 2021; 67: 827-844Crossref PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar“Medical” unloading strategies described in the article3Cavayas Y.A. Noly P.E. Singh G. Lamarche Y. Controversies in ECMO: immediate versus watchful waiting for VA-ECMO venting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2021; 8: 70-76Scopus (2) Google Scholar aim to address this very important phenomenon while avoiding the potential complications associated with mechanical unloading in selected patients in which the baseline risk of LV distension did not warrant pre-emptive mechanical unloading. Current evidence, in our opinion, does not clearly support the superiority of a prophylactic in all patients compared with a more tailored approach mechanical unloading strategy. From a purely LV loading perspective, mechanical unloading is probably always superior to medical unloading. However, multiple factors beyond the LV should be taken in consideration when managing patients in cardiogenic shock on venoarterial ECMO. Sometimes “less is more.” None of the mechanical unloading strategies are without potential severe adverse effects—may it be limb ischemia, hemolysis, or abdominal organ hypoperfusion. These complications may worsen organ dysfunction, compromise access to long-term therapies in the absence of recovery, and therefore counterbalance the potential benefits associated with decreased LV work. Until stronger evidence comes to support prophylactic mechanical unloading strategies, we advocate for an individualized approach, with careful monitoring of signs of LV distension in patients without pre-emptive unloading, proactive medical management, and rapid escalation to mechanical unloading if medical strategies fail.The strength of definition proposed by Meani and colleagues1Meani P. Kowalewski M. Raffa G.M. Lorusso R. Unloading the left ventricle in venoarterial extracorporeal life support: the urgent need of speaking the same language.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. May 14, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Google Scholar is that it provides clinicians with a constellation of signs on which to base management decisions. Isolated reduction in stroke volume as indicated by a left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity–time integral of <10 cm/s may reflect a profoundly depressed LV systolic function that may predispose to the development of LV dilatation and pulmonary congestion. However, it may also be an appropriate response to reduced LV filling in the setting of relatively high ECMO flows that drain in the circuit a high proportion of venous return. For instance, in a patient with a LVOT diameter of 2 cm, an LVOT velocity–time integral of 8 cm/s corresponds roughly to a stroke volume of 25 mL. With a heart rate of 80 beats per minute, this would still result in a cardiac output of 2 L/min. In a euvolemic patient with high ECMO flows, this may be enough to handle the limited residual transpulmonary blood flow and bronchial artery blood flow. Without overt signs of blood stasis, LV dilatation, increased LV filling pressures, and/or pulmonary congestion, it could be appropriate to hold mechanical unloading and proceed with medical management with close monitoring.We thank the authors for the opportunity to further discuss this important issue and warmly welcome their efforts to standardize the definition of LV distension. Dr Cavayas received honoraria for lectures from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec–Santé . All other authors reported no conflicts of interest.The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. Dr Cavayas received honoraria for lectures from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians and grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec–Santé . All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest. We thank you for your kind words and your thoughtful comments.1Meani P. Kowalewski M. Raffa G.M. Lorusso R. Unloading the left ventricle in venoarterial extracorporeal life support: the urgent need of speaking the same language.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. May 14, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Google Scholar We completely agree that left ventricular (LV) distension can result in catastrophic effects such as thrombus formation, compromise LV recovery, and that its importance should be emphasized in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A commonly agreed-upon definition of LV distension is central to future research efforts aiming to provide evidence-based management strategies. The very comprehensive definition of LV distension you propose should be adopted in that sense, as proposed in the latest version of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Guidelines.2Lorusso R. Shekar K. MacLaren G. Schmidt M. Pellegrino V. Meyns B. et al.ELSO interim guidelines for venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult cardiac patients.ASAIO J. 2021; 67: 827-844Crossref PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar “Medical” unloading strategies described in the article3Cavayas Y.A. Noly P.E. Singh G. Lamarche Y. Controversies in ECMO: immediate versus watchful waiting for VA-ECMO venting.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2021; 8: 70-76Scopus (2) Google Scholar aim to address this very important phenomenon while avoiding the potential complications associated with mechanical unloading in selected patients in which the baseline risk of LV distension did not warrant pre-emptive mechanical unloading. Current evidence, in our opinion, does not clearly support the superiority of a prophylactic in all patients compared with a more tailored approach mechanical unloading strategy. From a purely LV loading perspective, mechanical unloading is probably always superior to medical unloading. However, multiple factors beyond the LV should be taken in consideration when managing patients in cardiogenic shock on venoarterial ECMO. Sometimes “less is more.” None of the mechanical unloading strategies are without potential severe adverse effects—may it be limb ischemia, hemolysis, or abdominal organ hypoperfusion. These complications may worsen organ dysfunction, compromise access to long-term therapies in the absence of recovery, and therefore counterbalance the potential benefits associated with decreased LV work. Until stronger evidence comes to support prophylactic mechanical unloading strategies, we advocate for an individualized approach, with careful monitoring of signs of LV distension in patients without pre-emptive unloading, proactive medical management, and rapid escalation to mechanical unloading if medical strategies fail. The strength of definition proposed by Meani and colleagues1Meani P. Kowalewski M. Raffa G.M. Lorusso R. Unloading the left ventricle in venoarterial extracorporeal life support: the urgent need of speaking the same language.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. May 14, 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])Google Scholar is that it provides clinicians with a constellation of signs on which to base management decisions. Isolated reduction in stroke volume as indicated by a left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) velocity–time integral of <10 cm/s may reflect a profoundly depressed LV systolic function that may predispose to the development of LV dilatation and pulmonary congestion. However, it may also be an appropriate response to reduced LV filling in the setting of relatively high ECMO flows that drain in the circuit a high proportion of venous return. For instance, in a patient with a LVOT diameter of 2 cm, an LVOT velocity–time integral of 8 cm/s corresponds roughly to a stroke volume of 25 mL. With a heart rate of 80 beats per minute, this would still result in a cardiac output of 2 L/min. In a euvolemic patient with high ECMO flows, this may be enough to handle the limited residual transpulmonary blood flow and bronchial artery blood flow. Without overt signs of blood stasis, LV dilatation, increased LV filling pressures, and/or pulmonary congestion, it could be appropriate to hold mechanical unloading and proceed with medical management with close monitoring. We thank the authors for the opportunity to further discuss this important issue and warmly welcome their efforts to standardize the definition of LV distension. Unloading the left ventricle in venoarterial extracorporeal life support: The urgent need of speaking the same language!JTCVS OpenVol. 11PreviewWe have read the review article entitled “Controversies in ECMO: Immediate versus Watchful Waiting for VA-ECMO Venting” by Cavayas and colleagues,1 published in the Special Issue of Invited Presentations: Adult: Mechanical Circulatory Support: Invited Expert Opinions of JTCVS Open December 2021. We congratulate the authors for this nice review article and, at the same time, provide some personal comments. Full-Text PDF Open Access

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,423
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,660

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,253
Écart entre enseignants0,229 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJTCVS OpenMême sujetMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesTravaux en français237 207