Goldstein, James A.

This article provides a brief summary of the relevant recommendations and references related to percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. The goal was to provide the clinician with concise, evidence‐based contemporary recommendations, and the supporting documentation to encourage their application. The full text includes disclosure of all relevant relationships with industry for each writing committee member. A fundamental aspect of all expert consensus statements is that these carefully developed, evidence‐based documents can neither encompass all clinical circumstances, nor replace the judgment of individual physicians in management of each patient. The science of medicine is rooted in evidence, and the art of medicine is based on the application of this evidence to the individual patient. This expert consensus statement has adhered to these principles for optimal management of patients requiring percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. © 2015 by The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, The American College of Cardiology Foundation, the Heart Failure Society of America, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Although historically the intra‐aortic balloon pump has been the only mechanical circulatory support device available to clinicians, a number of new devices have become commercially available and have entered clinical practice. These include axial flow pumps, such as Impella®; left atrial to femoral artery bypass pumps, specifically the TandemHeart; and new devices for institution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These devices differ significantly in their hemodynamic effects, insertion, monitoring, and clinical applicability. This document reviews the physiologic impact on the circulation of these devices and their use in specific clinical situations. These situations include patients undergoing high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention, those presenting with cardiogenic shock, and acute decompensated heart failure. Specialized uses for right‐sided support and in pediatric populations are discussed and the clinical utility of mechanical circulatory support devices is reviewed, as are the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines. © 2015 by The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, The American College of Cardiology Foundation, The Heart Failure Society of America, and The Society for Thoracic Surgery.

ObjectivesThe clinical severity of aortic stenosis (AS) is based largely on symptoms. However, AS severity is primarily determined by estimating the aortic valve area (AVA) and pressure gradients (ΔP). Conditions may arise in which there is a mismatch in severity between AVA and ΔP determinations secondary to errors in measurement and/or assumption, alterations of flow, or variations in the magnitude of pressure recovery. The cause of discrepancy between area and gradient determinations must be deciphered so as to best counsel patients on the most ideal treatment strategy. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:183–194)