急性左心功能衰竭器械治疗的临床进展
王宗涛, 靳立军
广东省人民医院、广东省医学科学院、广东省心血管病研究所心内科, 广州510080
通讯作者: 靳立军, Tel:020-83827812-10529; E-mail:lijun-jin@163.com

作者简介: 王宗涛(1988-),男,贵州仁怀人,硕士研究生,研究方向为冠心病介入治疗。

摘要

急性左心功能衰竭是一种左心功能急剧恶化的表现,以其高死亡率严重危及患者的生命。近年来,治疗药物的更新和医疗技术的提高,使急性左心功能衰竭患者的预后已经有了改善。除了积极的药物治疗外,还有赖于相关的一些辅助器械的应用。本文就近几年急性左心功能衰竭患者的器械治疗概况作一综述。

关键词: 心脏辅助装置; 急性左心功能衰竭; 主动脉内球囊反搏; Impella 2.5
文献标识码:A
The Clinical Progress of Left Heart Failure Mechanical Therapy
WANG Zong-tao, JIN Li-jun
Department of Cardiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangdong Provincial Cardiovascular Institute, Guangzhou 510080, China
Abstract

Acute left heart failure is a kind of cardiovascular severe deterioration with high mortality threatening patient’s life. In recent years, with the development of medical technology and drugs, the prognosis of patients has been greatly improved. In addition to the optional application of drug, some assist device is also indispensable. In this paper, we reviewed the general situation of the mechanical treatments in patients with acute left heart failure in recent years.

Key words: heart-assist device; acute left heart failure; intraaortic balloon counterpulsation; Impella2.5

急性左心室功能衰竭(左心衰),又称心源性休克,是指由于各种病因导致的左心室功能急剧下降,全身器官灌注不足引起的一系列临床症状。虽然造成心源性休克的病因很多,但三分之二的心源性休克由于急性冠脉综合征所致,特别是急性心肌梗死。其他病因包括心肌炎、慢性心功能衰竭失代偿、心脏手术后以及外伤所致的心脏功能急性损害等[ 1]。近年来,药物的不断更新已经明显降低了心功能衰竭患者的死亡率,特别是β受体阻滞剂和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors,ACEI)等药物的使用,更是让心功能衰竭患者的生存率和生活质量方面的改善有了较大提高[ 2]。然而,即使是院内得到及时救治的急性左心功能衰竭患者,在院期间病死率仍有3%~4%,且出院后1个月内病死率为 8%~9% ,1 年内病死率则高达35%~40% ,而5年内有半数以上(60%~75%) 患者死亡[ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]。因此,针对急性左心功能衰竭患者,应用相关的临床技术去帮助患者渡过急性恶化期,恢复心功能,一直是医务人员需要解决的难题。如何克服患者低排血量、心肌负荷重等不利因素,除了药物的应用以外,还有赖于相关的辅助器械的应用。1968年主动脉内球囊反搏(intraaortic balloon counterpulsation,IABP) 作为一种左心功能衰竭器械治疗方法的问世,以及随后其他心脏辅助装置的应用,给急性左心功能衰竭和心源性休克患者带来了希望。这些辅助装置的使用,改善了患者的临床预后[ 1, 3, 7]

最近几年的研究证明,除了积极药物治疗外,部分急性左心功能衰竭患者需要给予心肌一定的恢复时间,这就更加说明了左心功能衰竭器械治疗的必要性和不可替代性。根据相关文献报道[ 7],应用于急性左心功能衰竭的治疗器械,目前临床以反搏技术和左心辅助装置为多见。反搏技术目前主要分为IABP和主动脉旁反搏装置(paraaortic counterpulsation device,PACD);文献报道的左心辅助装置(left ventricular assist device,LVAD),主要分为经皮植入式左心辅助装置和非经皮植入式左心辅助装置,前者主要有TandemHeart和Impella两种;后者最常见的是体外膜肺氧合(extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,ECMO)[ 3, 8],国内还有罗叶泵也曾应用于临床[ 9]。另外,对于急性左心功能衰竭患者,体外生命支持、开胸置入的心脏辅助装置也是重要的治疗手段[ 10]

1 反搏技术
1.1 主动脉内球囊反搏

IABP经股动脉植入一双腔顶端带气囊和压力传感器探头的导管至胸降主动脉内,导管外接 IABP 主机的压力换能器及氦气出入装置。通过心电监护或主动脉压力波形实现和心脏同步工作。心脏舒张期,气囊处于充气状态,增加舒张期动脉压,增加舒张期冠状动脉血流量,主动脉舒张压升高,冠状动脉流量增加,心肌供血增加; 心脏收缩前,气囊排气,主动脉压力下降,心脏后负荷降低,心脏射血阻力减少,心肌耗氧量下降[ 11, 12]

临床应用与局限性:1950 年,Kantrowitz 等通过动物实验首次提出并证实,通过股动脉收缩期吸血舒张期射血的容量置换方式,显著增加了舒张期冠状动脉流量。此后,经过广大医务工作者的不断努力,终于在10 年后,Clauss 报道的主动脉内反搏试验证实了IABP能显著改善血流动力学。并于1967年首次应用于临床并获得成功。从此开启了心功能衰竭治疗的一个新时代,作为心功能衰竭的一种治疗方式,为患者带来了福音,此后有大量的文献均证实了IABP的有效性[ 11, 12, 13, 14]。在欧洲心脏病学会、美国心脏病学会的指南中,对于心肌梗死所导致的心功能不全,甚至心功能衰竭患者,IABP均获得了较高级别的推荐证据[ 15, 16]。但近来有学者对其临床价值提出质疑,有文献证实IABP对患者预后和射血分数的改善存在不确定性[ 13, 17]

1.2 主动脉旁反搏装置

PACD由相互偶联的血囊和气囊,根据动脉压力波形变化及心电图改变,由气囊的充放气驱动血囊增加血压灌注和吸血,达到心脏泵功能的作用。PACD从动物实验证实有助于急性心功能衰竭的治疗,到后来应用于临床,其经历了漫长的研究和临床推广过程。1996年Nanas首次将 PACD 应用于临床上心功能衰竭患者,并报道了PACD对血流动力学的改善明显,其临床应用才被证实,之后进行了一系列该类装置的动物实验和临床应用研究,证明 PACD 的循环辅助效果明显[ 18, 19, 20]

临床应用与局限性:虽然有动物实验证据及相关的文献报道, PACD 与IABP 对急性心功能衰竭的研究均有改善心脏射血分数的作用,且PACD在改善射血分数方面优于IABP。但PACD需经胸后与升主动脉吻合,创伤大,对于行冠脉介入治疗的心源性休克和严重冠脉病变患者使用不切实际。就目前临床应用来说,IABP具有更广泛的临床应用价值[ 21]

2 左心室辅助装置

LVAD是一种借助生物力学和物理学,实现部分或完全替代心脏泵血功能的装置,将血液从心房或心室引流出去,达到维持外周血压或满足机体血液需求。目前相关文献报道的装置比较多,国外以TandemHeart和Impella两种为主;国内曾有罗叶泵的研制成功,但临床应用并未受到推广[ 1, 9]。自1961年左心辅助装置能减少心肌耗氧被首次报道,到1968年体外辅助循环被应用于临床取得了成功后,左心室辅助装置得到了迅速的发展[ 22]。LVAD目前临床主要应用于难治性心力衰竭、急性心源性休克和外科手术辅助循环等方面。特别是针对急性左心功能衰竭患者,如何迅速地改善患者的泵血功能、满足机体的需求有非常重要的意义[ 23]

2.1 TandemHeart

TandemHeart是一种体外离心泵供能的经皮左心房-髂动脉旁路,以一种体外泵代替心脏泵血功能,经过房间隔穿刺,直接将左心房内的血液泵入股动脉内,经腹主动脉逆流至主动脉弓,再向心脏、脑部、上肢供血,可减轻右心室后负荷和左心室前负荷。该装置能在一定程度上完全代替心脏功能,在急性左心功能衰竭和心源性休克患者,可以起到过渡作用,有助于心功能的正常恢复。通过控制植入泵的转速来控制泵出的血量,可向动脉内提供3.5~4.0 L/min 的血流[ 24, 25, 26]

临床应用与局限性:TandemHeart能维持心脏正常灌注和重要器官的血流灌注,能减轻心脏负荷,同时能增加器官灌注,减小心室壁张力,减慢和改善心肌重构[ 26]。有研究证实,TandemHeart与IABP均能改善心源性休克患者的心功能,提高射血分数,但就对心源性休克患者的心脏射血分数的提高方面两者有显著性差异,前者更有效[2.1±1.3 L/(min.m2) vs. 1.2 L±0.8 L/(min.m2), P<0.5][ 26]。但两者对心源性休克患者30天的死亡率的影响没有差异(43% vs. 45%, P=0.86)[ 27]。同时,TandemHeart作为一类侵入性设备也会给患者带来一些风险,比较常见的并发症如出血、下肢缺血、出血性卒中以及与导管器械植入相关的感染等并发症[ 26, 27]。这使TandemHeart在临床的使用受到了一定程度的限制。

2.2 Impella

Impella与TandemHeart属于同一类心脏辅助装置,是一类非搏动性泵装置。Impella的特点在于通过逆向植入微型轴流式血泵,跨过主动脉瓣并将血液直接泵入升主动脉。Impella模拟正常生理过程,直接降低左心室负荷并主动地向全身供血,也可在一定程度上代替心脏泵血功能,并能增加冠脉血流量,对心源性休克患者的心功能恢复有积极的作用。并可通过调节泵转速来控制泵入主动脉的血流量[ 28, 29, 30]

临床应用与局限性:Impella是唯一一个直接从心室抽吸血液,泵入升主动脉,直接减轻心脏负荷的装置。可以完全或者部分代替心脏维持血流动力学的稳定,Impella分为2.5和5.0两种类型,最大可向外周提供2.5 L/min和5 L/min的血流量,且维持最长时间可超过10天。有研究证实,Impella的应用在降低心脏机械负荷的同时,能增高氧供与耗氧比值,能增高冠脉灌注压和平均动脉压,具有很好的安全性和有效性。但Impella也会带来一些并发症,诸如心脏填塞、血栓形成、肢体缺血和出血以及血管事件等,欧洲相关的注册研究证实其发生率为4%~6.2%[ 31, 32, 33]

2.3 体外膜肺氧合

ECMO是一种利用临时的人工体外的装置部分或者全部代替心肺功能,以达到减轻心肺负荷和改善心肺功能的目的。自1972年成功应用以来,这种治疗方法就一直受到大家的关注。到1989年,来自世界范围的170多个中心连续报道了ECMO的临床应用进展[ 8, 34]

临床应用与局限性:对休克患者,在借助于短暂的生命支持治疗后,必须解决患者心肺功能不足以支持患者正常生命代谢的问题,ECMO为这类患者提供必要的支持方面有着特别的作用。尤其在患者行心胸手术后,ECMO代替原心肺组织,特别是代替肺组织氧合,为组织提供足够的氧以维持正常代谢[ 35]。比起体外普通的心肺支持装置,ECMO有更为突出的优势。其小巧、便捷的特点,使得ECMO在预防及救治心血管事件及急性休克的患者时有明显的优势[ 35]。但其并发的出血与血栓形成、感染、功能障碍、神经精神系统异常,费用过高和伦理学相关问题,以及对机械掌握操作的困难程度等,使ECMO并没有得到广泛应用[ 36, 37, 38]。且有文献指出,对于脓毒性休克、爆发性心肌炎的患者使用ECMO与普通体外循环辅助装置并无差异[ 37- 38]

2.4 其他左心室辅助装置

目前对急性左心功能衰竭非药物治疗有很多,体外循环支持、人工心脏也是紧急情况下的选择[ 10, 39]。对维持患者生命体征,等待进一步有效治疗有一定的作用。但限于其监测、植入技术、费用、严重并发症等方面的问题,目前的临床应用仍然很局限[ 40]

3 结 语

对急性左心功能衰竭患者,目前的器械治疗起到了重要的作用,但限于相关技术的掌握以及对器械治疗适应证的要求不同,临床上的广泛应用尚需时日。虽然有多个研究都证实了LVAD(Impella)在改善心脏射血分数方面较反搏技术(IABP)更有优势,且在短期预后、维持血流动力学和减少并发症等方面亦有一定优势,但长期预后并没有差异[ 40, 41]。目前尚缺乏大规模多中心临床试验加以验证。在可预期的将来,随着临床应用和研究以及技术的进步,器械治疗急性左心功能衰竭必将会有更大的发展。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

参考文献
[1] Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock[J]. Eur Heart J, 2013, Sep 7. [Epub ahead of print] [本文引用:3]
[2] Mebazaa A. Current ESC/ESICM and ACCF/AHA guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute heart failure in adults—Are there differences?[J]. Pol Arch Med Wewn, 2009, 119(9): 569-573. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 1.833]
[3] Kantrowitz A. Challenge to conventional treatment for myocardial failure-mechanical assist[J]. Biomater Med Devices Artif Organs, 1976, 4(1): 1-20. [本文引用:2]
[4] Narang R, Cleland JG, Erhardt L, et al. Mode of death in chronic heart failure. A request and proposition for more accurate classification[J]. Eur Heart J, 1996, 17(9): 1390-1403. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 14.097]
[5] Baker DW, Einstadter D, Thomas C, et al. Mortality trends for 23, 505 Medicare patients hospitalized with heart failure in Northeast Ohio, 1991 to 1997[J]. Am Heart J, 2003, 146(2): 258-264. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 4.497]
[6] Ho KK, Anderson KM, Kannel WB, et al. Survival after the onset of congestive heart failure in Framingham Heart Study subjects[J]. Circulation, 1993, 88(1): 107-115. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 15.202]
[7] Gheorghiade M, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Systolic blood pressure at admission, clinical characteristics, and outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure[J]. JAMA, 2006, 296(18): 2217-2226. [本文引用:2] [JCR: 13.772]
[8] Gattinoni L, Carlesso E, Langer T. Clinical review: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation[J]. Crit Care, 2011, 15(6): 243. [本文引用:2] [JCR: 4.607]
[9] 肖学钧, 范瑞新, 成安衡, . 新型国产隔膜气动左心辅助泵(罗叶泵)的临床试用[J]. 岭南心血管病杂志, 2002, 8(1): 43-45. [本文引用:2]
[10] Miller LW, Guglin M, Rogers J. Cost of ventricular assist devices: Can we afford the progress?[J]. Circulation, 2013, 127(6): 743-748. [本文引用:2] [JCR: 15.202]
[11] Schmidt R, Kasper M, Gerula C, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump prior to noncardiac surgery: A forgotten remedy?[J]. J Invasive Cardiol, 2011, 23(2): E26-E30. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 1.569]
[12] Akkus NI, Rajpal S, Agnani S. Successful use of glycoprotein Ⅱb/Ⅲa inhibitor, heparin, and IABP during PCI in a post-neurosurgical patient with STEMI and cardiogenic shock due to very late bare-metal stent thrombosis[J]. J Invasive Cardiol, 2012, 24(2): 76-78. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 1.569]
[13] Bahekar A, Singh M, Singh S, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes using intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis[J]. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther, 2012, 17(1): 44-56. [本文引用:1]
[14] Schillinger W, Hunlich M, Sossalla S, et al. Intracoronary pyruvate in cardiogenic shock as an adjunctive therapy to catecholamines and intra-aortic balloon pump shows beneficial effects on hemodynamics[J]. Clin Res Cardiol, 2011, 100(5): 433-438. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 3.667]
[15] Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction—executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction)[J]. Can J Cardiol, 2004, 20(10): 977-1025. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 3.122]
[16] Mcmurray JJ, Adamopoulos S, Anker SD, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012: The task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC[J]. Eur J Heart Fail, 2012, 14(8): 803-869. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 5.247]
[17] Stone GW, Ohman EM, Miller MF, et al. Contemporary utilization and outcomes of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction: The benchmark registry[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2003, 41(11): 1940-1945. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 14.086]
[18] Sorensen EN, Pierson RR, Feller ED, et al. University of Maryland surgical experience with the Jarvik 2000 axial flow ventricular assist device[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2012, 93(1): 133-140. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 3.454]
[19] Bachman TN, Bhama JK, Verkaik J, et al. In-vitro evaluation of ventricular cannulation for rotodynamic cardiac assist devices[J]. Cardiovasc Eng Technol, 2011, 2(3): 203-211. [本文引用:1]
[20] Nanas JN, Lolas CT, Charitos CE, et al. A valveless high stroke volume counterpulsation device restores hemodynamics in patients with congestive heart failure and intractable cardiogenic shock awaiting heart transplantation[J]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 1996, 111(1): 55-61. [本文引用:1]
[21] Koenig SC, Litwak KN, Giridharan GA, et al. Acute hemodynamic efficacy of a 32-ml subcutaneous counterpulsation device in a calf model of diminished cardiac function[J]. ASAIO J, 2008, 54(6): 578-584. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 1.491]
[22] Norman JC, Brook MI, Cooley DA, et al. Total support of the circulation of a patient with post-cardiotomy stone-heart syndrome by a partial artificial heart (ALVAD) for 5 days followed by heart and kidney transplantation[J]. Lancet, 1978, 1(8074): 1125-1127. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 39.06]
[23] Sarkar K, Kini AS. Percutaneous left ventricular support devices[J]. Cardiol Clin, 2010, 28(1): 169-184. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 1.322]
[24] Windecker S. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock[J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2007, 13(5): 521-527. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 2.967]
[25] Thiele H, Lauer B, Hambrecht R, et al. Reversal of cardiogenic shock by percutaneous left atrial-to-femoral arterial bypass assistance[J]. Circulation, 2001, 104(24): 2917-2922. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 15.202]
[26] Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, et al. A rand omized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tand emHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock[J]. Am Heart J, 2006, 152(3): 461-469. [本文引用:2] [JCR: 4.497]
[27] Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, et al. Rand omized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock[J]. Eur Heart J, 2005, 26(13): 1276-1283. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 14.097]
[28] Schmitz-Rode T, Graf J, Pfeffer JG, et al. An expand able percutaneous catheter pump for left ventricular support: Proof of concept[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005, 45(11): 1856-1861. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 14.086]
[29] Jackson KP, Hegland DD, Frazier-Mills C, et al. Impact of using a telescoping-support catheter system for left ventricular lead placement on implant success and procedure time of cardiac resynchronization therapy[J]. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, 2013, 36(5): 553-558. [本文引用:1]
[30] Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L, et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2. 5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECTⅠ Trial): Initial U. S. experience[J]. JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2009, 2(2): 91-96. [本文引用:1]
[31] Burzotta F, Paloscia L, Trani C, et al. Feasibility and long-term safety of elective Impella-assisted high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: A pilot two-centre study[J]. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown), 2008, 9(10): 1004-1010. [本文引用:1]
[32] Henriques JP, Remmelink M, Baan JJ, et al. Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2. 5[J]. Am J Cardiol, 2006, 97(7): 990-992. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 3.209]
[33] Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A rand omized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008, 52(19): 1584-1588. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 14.086]
[34] Combes A, Brechot N, Luyt CE, et al. What is the niche for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome?[J]. Curr Opin Crit Care, 2012, 18(5): 527-532. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 2.967]
[35] Peirce EN. Is extracorporeal membrane oxygenation a viable technique?[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 1981, 31(2): 102-104. [本文引用:2] [JCR: 3.454]
[36] Morris AH, Hirshberg E, Miller RR, et al. Counterpoint: Efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in 2009 influenza A(H1N1): sufficient evidence?[J]. Chest, 2010, 138(4): 778-781. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 5.854]
[37] Crow S, Fischer AC, Schears RM. Extracorporeal life support: Utilization, cost, controversy, and ethics of trying to save lives[J]. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2009, 13(3): 183-191. [本文引用:1]
[38] Gamulka BD. Ethical uncertainty: An approach to decisions involving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation[J]. CMAJ, 1994, 150(4): 565-568. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 6.465]
[39] Loforte A, Stepanenko A, Potapov EV, et al. Temporary right ventricular mechanical support in high-risk left ventricular assist device recipients versus permanent biventricular or total artificial heart support[J]. Artif Organs, 2013, 37(6): 523-530. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 1.964]
[40] Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis of controlled trials[J]. Eur Heart J, 2009, 30(17): 2102-2108. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 14.097]
[41] O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, rand omized 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[J]. Circulation, 2012, 126(14): 1717-1727. [本文引用:1] [JCR: 15.202]