• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.329-334
• /
• 2008

Background: Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support. (PCPS) has the potential to rescue patients in cardiogenic shock who might otherwise die. PCPS has been a therapeutic option in a variety of the clinical settings such as for patients with myocardial Infarction, high-risk coronary intervention and postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, and the PCPS device is easy to install. We report our early experience with PCPS as a life saving procedure in cardiogenic shock patients due to acute myocardial infarction. Material and Method: From January 2005 to December 2006, eight patients in cardiogenic shock with acute myocardial infarction underwent PCPS using the CAPIOX emergency bypass system($EBS^{(R)}$, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan). Uptake cannulae were inserted deep into the femoral vein up to the right atrium and return cannulae were inserted into the femoral artery with Seldinger techniques using 20 and 16-French cannulae, respectively. Simultaneously, autopriming was performed at the $EBS^{(R)}$ circuit. The $EBS^{(R)}$ flow rate was maintained between $2.5{\sim}3.0L/min/m^2$ and anticoagulation was performed using intravenous heparin with an ACT level above 200 seconds. Result: The mean age of patients was $61.1{\pm}14.2$ years (range, 39 to 77 years). Three patients were under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), three patients were under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ during PCI, one patient was under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ after PCI, and one patient was under control of the $EBS^{(R)}$ after coronary bypass surgery. The mean support time was $47.5{\pm}27.9$ hours (range, 8 to 76 hours). Five patients (62.5%) could be weaned from the $EBS^{(R)}$ after $53.6{\pm}27.2$ hours. (range, 12 to 68 hours) of support. All of the patients who could successfully be weaned from support were discharged from the hospital. There were three complications: one case of gastrointestinal bleeding and two cases of acute renal failure. Two of the three mortality cases were under cardiac arrest before $EBS^{(R)}$ support, and one patient had an intractable ventricular arrhythmia during the support. All of the discharged patients are still surviving at $16.8{\pm}3.1$ months (range, 12 to 20 months) of follow-up. Conclusion: The use of $EBS^{(R)}$ for cardiogenic shock caused by an acute myocardial infarction could rescue patients who might otherwise have died. Successfully recovered patients after $EBS^{(R)}$ treatment have survived without severe complications. More experience and additional clinical investigations are necessary to elucidate the proper installation timing and management protocol of the $EBS^{(R)}$ in the future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.