Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella mechanical circulatory support
Section: Casos clínicos
Authors
Virginia Abadía Piquero, Consuelo Arroyo Alfageme, Susana Bailo Medina, Lorena Chueca Toral, Javier Ballabriga Clavería.
Position
Enfermera/o del Servicio de Hemodinámica del Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet de Zaragoza.
Contact address
vaps77@hotmail.com
Contact email: vaps77@hotmail.com
Abstract
In high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, there is evidence of the benefit of the use of left ventricular support devices. We describe a case of a patient with severe aortic stenosis and three vessel and left main coronary artery disease, who due to a high surgical risk, percutaneous coronary revascularization was decided. This procedure was performed electively, following aortic valvuloplasty and subsequent support with implantation of an Impella CP®-type ventricular assist device. An individualized care plan was carried out according to the NANDA, NIC and NOC taxonomy.
Material and methods. A literature review of scientific articles dealing with the adverse effects associated with oxygen administration was carried out.
Keywords:
standardized nursing terminology; heart-assist device; Coronary Artery Disease; balloon valvuloplasty; nursing care
Versión en Español
Título:
Intervencionismo coronario percutáneo con apoyo de dispositivo Impella
Artículo completo no disponible en este idioma / Full article is not available in this language
Bibliography
1. Siegenthaler MP, Brehm K, Strecker T, Hanke T, Notzold A, Olschewski M, et al. The Impella Recover microaxial left ventricular assist device reduces mortality for postcardiotomy failure: a three-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004; 127:812-22.
2. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F, et al. Percutaneous Transcatheter Implantation of an Aortic Valve Prosthesis for Calcific Aortic Stenosis: First Human Case Description. Circulation. 2002;106(24):3006-8.
3. NANDA. Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification. New York: Elsevier; 2018.
4. O‘Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention:the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012; 126:1717-1727.
5. Becher T, Eder F, Faumann S, Lobnitzer D, Pollmann B, Behnes M, et al. Unprotented versus protected hish-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 in patients with multivessel disease and severely reduced left ventricular function. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97 (43):e12665.
