Mathew Jose Chakaramakkil
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Mathew Jose Chakaramakkil has a total of 2 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Cumaraswamy Sivathasan
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
1 shared publication- Cumaraswamy Sivathasan
Mechanical Cardiac Support and Transplantation, National Heart Centre, Singapore, Singapore
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 11 February 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
- Vol. 37 (S2) , 319-326
ECMO in cardiogenic shock and bridge to heart transplant
Purpose The aim of this review is to discuss the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in cardiogenic shock and its use to bridge patients to heart transplantation. Methods and results Consideration of published literature reveals indications for ECMO in cardiogenic shock and tools for patient selection, adequate evidence of its efficacy, its advantages when compared with other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices and details of its use as a bridge to decision, bridge to recovery, bridge to bridge (durable ventricular assist device) and bridge to heart transplant. Conclusion ECMO is invaluable in treating patients with medically refractory profound cardiogenic shock and allows for cardiac recovery or planning for permanent heart replacement treatments.
- 11 February 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
- Vol. 37 (S2) , 319-326
ECMO in cardiogenic shock and bridge to heart transplant
Purpose The aim of this review is to discuss the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in cardiogenic shock and its use to bridge patients to heart transplantation. Methods and results Consideration of published literature reveals indications for ECMO in cardiogenic shock and tools for patient selection, adequate evidence of its efficacy, its advantages when compared with other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices and details of its use as a bridge to decision, bridge to recovery, bridge to bridge (durable ventricular assist device) and bridge to heart transplant. Conclusion ECMO is invaluable in treating patients with medically refractory profound cardiogenic shock and allows for cardiac recovery or planning for permanent heart replacement treatments.
- 16 August 2018
- Published by Springer Nature in Current Cardiology Reports
- Vol. 20 (10) , 1-8
ECMO and Short-term Support for Cardiogenic Shock in Heart Failure
Purpose of Review This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure. Recent Findings Trials done previously have shown that IABP does not improve survival in cardiogenic shock compared to medical treatment, and that neither Impella 2.5 nor TandemHeart improves survival compared to IABP. The “IMPRESS in severe shock” trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing ECMO with IABP showed 33% improved 30-day survival with ECMO (risk difference 33%; 95% CI 14–52%; p = 0.0008; NNT 3). Summary ECMO is indicated in medically refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO can be considered in cardiogenic shock patients with estimated mortality of more than 50%. ECMO is probably the MCS of choice in cardiogenic shock with; biventricular failure, respiratory failure, life-threatening arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.
- 16 August 2018
- Published by Springer Nature in Current Cardiology Reports
- Vol. 20 (10) , 1-8
ECMO and Short-term Support for Cardiogenic Shock in Heart Failure
Purpose of Review This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure. Recent Findings Trials done previously have shown that IABP does not improve survival in cardiogenic shock compared to medical treatment, and that neither Impella 2.5 nor TandemHeart improves survival compared to IABP. The “IMPRESS in severe shock” trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing ECMO with IABP showed 33% improved 30-day survival with ECMO (risk difference 33%; 95% CI 14–52%; p = 0.0008; NNT 3). Summary ECMO is indicated in medically refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO can be considered in cardiogenic shock patients with estimated mortality of more than 50%. ECMO is probably the MCS of choice in cardiogenic shock with; biventricular failure, respiratory failure, life-threatening arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.