EJCTS Click here for details of sales representative
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Yih-Sharng Chen
Hsi-Yu Yu
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chen, Y.-S.
Right arrow Articles by Yu, H.-Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chen, Y.-S.
Right arrow Articles by Yu, H.-Y.
Related Collections
Right arrow Mechanical Circulatory Assistance

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27:931-932
© 2005 Elsevier Science NL

Letter to the Editor

Choice of mechanical support for fulminant myocarditis: ECMO vs. VAD?

Yih-Sharng Chen*, Hsi-Yu Yu

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, 7 Chung-Shan South Road, 100 Taipei, Taiwan, ROC

Received 15 December 2004; accepted 21 January 2005.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +886 2 239 58747. (E-mail: yschen11{at}yahoo.com.tw).

Key Words: Fulminant myocarditis • VAD • ECMO

The article by Grinda and colleagues in the December 2004 issue of the European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery regarding the experience of ventricular assist device (VAD) support on fulminant myocarditis (FM) [1] deserves our respect and we congratulate their excellent results.

From 1995 to 2001, we used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in our institute as first-line mechanical support to treat 15 patients of FM with shock, including 5 under external cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 10 with high-degree atrio-ventricular block. Our results revealed 93.3% (14/15) in successful weaning rate and 73.3% (11/15) in discharge survival rate [2,3]. The average ECMO support time was 129±50h (127±83h for the survivors). As compared with the article [1] and another study regarding ABIOMED use for FM [2], ECMO group had lower morbidity rate than VAD group: mechanical related thrombo-embolism was 6.7% in ECMO group [3] and 40–27.3% in VAD group [1,2]; re-exploration for hemostasis was 20% in ECMO group [3] and 45.5% in VAD group [2].

We would like to mention the following points for the mechanical support for FM. First, since FM tends to recover within 2 weeks [4], ECMO is an appropriate option for this relatively short duration. ECMO is easier to wean off than VAD, and ECMO can be converted to VAD at any time if necessary. Secondly, biventricular involvement is common in FM (over 70% with right heart involvement as reported [4]), therefore ECMO might be a suitable choice for FM in critical condition because the degree of right heart failure cannot be predicted accurately. Therefore, we agree the authors' protocol of using BiVAD. Third, the support duration to recovery was shorter in ECMO group than in VAD group (5.5±3.0 days in ECMO group [3] vs. 10.2±6.1 days for BiVAD group [1] and 10.0±5.3 days for ABIOMED group [2]). This indicated that the theoretically incomplete decompression of left ventricle (LV) in ECMO group did not negatively influence the recovery of LV in FM. Fourth, daily troponin level was found as a good indicator for myocardial recovery in weaning of ECMO [3], but it cannot be applied in VAD group.

The final solution of the best choice of mechanical support for FM still awaits further evidence-based studies.

References

  1. Grinda JM, Chevalier P, D'Attellis N, Bricourt MO, Alain B, Pierre G, Fabiani JN, Alain D. Fulminant myocarditis in adults and children: bi-ventricular assist device for recovery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;26(12):1169-1173.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Chen JM, Spanier TB, Gonzalez JJ, Marelli D, Flannery MA, Tector KA, Cullinane S, Oz MC. Improved survival in patients with acute myocarditis using external pulsatile mechanical ventricular device. J Heart Lung Transplant 1999;18:351-357.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Chen YS, Yu HY, Huang SC, Chiu KM, Lin TY, Lai LP, Lin FY, Wang SS, Chu SH, Ko WJ. Experience and result extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in treating fulminant myocarditis with shock—what mechanical support should be considered first?. J Heart Lung Transplant 2005;24(1):81-87.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Lieberman EB, Hutchins GM, Herskowitz A, Rose NR, Baughman KL. Clinicopathologic description of myocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:1617-1626.[Abstract]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NEJMHome page
L. T. Cooper Jr.
Myocarditis
N. Engl. J. Med., April 9, 2009; 360(15): 1526 - 1538.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Yih-Sharng Chen
Hsi-Yu Yu
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chen, Y.-S.
Right arrow Articles by Yu, H.-Y.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chen, Y.-S.
Right arrow Articles by Yu, H.-Y.
Related Collections
Right arrow Mechanical Circulatory Assistance

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS