Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intraaortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Transplant

An explainable machine learning approach using contemporary UNOS data to identify patients who fail to bridge to heart transplantation

Background

The use of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) and Impella devices as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) has increased significantly in recent times. This study aimed to create and validate an explainable machine learning (ML) model that can predict the failure of status two listings and identify the clinical features that significantly impact this outcome.

Methods

We used the UNOS registry database to identify HTx candidates listed as UNOS Status 2 between 2018 and 2022 and supported with either Impella (5.0 or 5.5) or IABP. We used the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm to build and validate ML models. We developed two models: (1) a comprehensive model that included all patients in our cohort and (2) separate models designed for each of the 11 UNOS regions.

Results

We analyzed data from 4,178 patients listed as Status 2. Out of them, 12% had primary outcomes indicating Status 2 failure. Our ML models were based on 19 variables from the UNOS data. The comprehensive model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (±0.03), with a range between 0.44 (±0.08) and 0.74 (±0.01) across different regions. The models' specificity ranged from 0.75 to 0.96. The top five most important predictors were the number of inotropes, creatinine, sodium, BMI, and blood group.

Conclusion

Using ML is clinically valuable for highlighting patients at risk, enabling healthcare providers to offer intensified monitoring, optimization, and care escalation selectively.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support with Impella in cardiac surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative cardiogenic shock (CS) in cardiac surgery is still burdened by a high mortality risk. The introduction of Impella pumps in the therapeutic armory of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) has potential implications to improve the management of complex cases, although it has never been systematically addressed. We performed a systematic review of the reported use of tMCS with Impella in cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for all original studies on the Impella use in adult patients in cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (out of 151 identified by search string) were included. All studies were observational and all but one (95%) were retrospective. Seven studies focused on the implantation of Impella in the pre-operative setting (coronary or valvular surgery), either as a prophylactic device in high-risk cases (3 studies) or in patients with CS as stabilization tool prior to cardiac surgery procedure (4 studies). Three studies reported the use of Impella as periprocedural support for percutaneous valvular procedure, three as bridge to heart replacement, and six for postcardiotomy CS. Impella support had a low complication rate and was successful in supporting hemodynamics pre-, intra- and postoperatively. Most consistently reported data were left-ventricular ejection fraction at implant, short-term survival and weaning rate.

CONCLUSIONS

tMCS with Impella in cardiac surgery patients is feasible and successful. It can be applied in selected cardiac surgery patients and presents advantages over other types of support. Systematic prospective studies are needed to standardize indications for implant and management of surgical issues, and to identify which patients may benefit.

Cardiogenic shock etiology and exit strategy impact survival in patients with Impella 5.5

BACKGROUND

Despite historical differences in cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes by etiology, outcomes by CS etiology have yet to be described in patients supported by temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella 5.5.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify differences in survival and post-support destination for these patients in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) CS at a high-volume, tertiary, transplant center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who received Impella 5.5 at our center from November 2020 to June 2022 was conducted.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients underwent Impella 5.5 implantation for CS; 23 (34%) for AMI and 44 (66%) for ADHF. AMI patients presented with higher SCAI stage, pre-implant lactate, and rate of prior MCS devices, and fewer days from admission to implantation. Survival was lower for AMI patients at 30 days, 90 days, and discharge. No difference in time to all-cause mortality was found when excluding patients receiving transplant. There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ADHF-CS patients with Impella 5.5 support have a significantly higher rate of survival than patients with AMI-CS. ADHF patients were successfully bridged to heart transplant more often than AMI patients, contributing to increased survival.

Utilization of the percutaneous left ventricular support as bridge to heart transplantation across the United States: In-depth UNOS database analysis

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella device utilization as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) have risen exponentially. We aimed to explore the influence of device selection on HTx outcomes, considering regional practice variation.

METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal study was performed on a United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry dataset. We included adult patients listed for HTx between October 2018 and April 2022 as status 2, as justified by requiring IABP or Impella support. The primary end-point was successful bridging to HTx as status 2.

RESULTS

Of 32,806 HTx during the study period, 4178 met inclusion criteria (Impella n = 650, IABP n = 3528). Waitlist mortality increased from a nadir of 16 (in 2019) to a peak of 36 (in 2022) per thousand status 2 listed patients. Impella annual use increased from 8% in 2019 to 19% in 2021. Compared to IABP, Impella patients demonstrated higher medical acuity and lower success rate of transplantation as status 2 (92.1% vs 88.9%, p < 0.001). The IABP:Impella utilization ratio varied widely between regions, ranging from 1.77 to 21.31, with high Impella use in Southern and Western states. However, this difference was not justified by medical acuity, regional transplant volume, or waitlist time and did not correlate with waitlist mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift in utilizing Impella as opposed to IABP did not improve waitlist outcomes. Our results suggest that clinical practice patterns beyond mere device selection determine successful bridging to HTx. There is a critical need for objective evidence to guide tMCS utilization and a paradigm shift in the UNOS allocation system to achieve equitable HTx practice across the United States.

Challenges with the current United Network for Organ Sharing heart allocation system

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The revised United States heart organ allocation system was launched in October 2018. In this review, we summarize this United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy and describe intended and unintended consequences.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although early studies published after the change suggested postheart transplant survival declined at 6 months and 1 year, recent publications with longer follow-up time have confirmed comparable posttransplant survival in adjusted models and several patient cohorts. Moreover, the new allocation decreased overall waitlist time from 112 to 39 days ( P  < 0.001). Mean ischemic time increased because of greater distances traveled to acquire donor hearts under broader sharing. Despite the intention to decrease exception requests by expanding the number of priority tiers to provide more granular risk stratification, ∼30% of patients remain waitlisted under exception status. Left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implants are declining and the number of LVAD patients on the transplant list has decreased dramatically after the allocation system change.

SUMMARY

As the next allocation system is developed, it is imperative to curtail the use of temporary mechanical support as a strategy solely for listing purposes, identify attributes that more clearly stratify the severity of illness, provide greater oversight of exception requests, and address concerns regarding patients with durable LVADs.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes

Patients with cardiogenic shock may require stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) to assess candidacy for definitive therapy, including heart transplantation (HTx) or durable MCS, and/or maintain stability while on the HTx waiting list. We describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs. Impella [Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA] placement at a high-volume advanced heart failure center. We assessed patients ≥ 18 years who received IABP or Impella support for cardiogenic shock from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2021. Ninety patients were included, 59 (65.6%) with IABP and 31 (34.4%) with Impella. Impella was used more frequently in less stable patients, as evidenced by higher inotrope scores, greater ventilator support, and worse renal function. While patients on Impella support had higher in-hospital mortality, despite the worse cardiogenic shock in patients for whom clinicians chose Impella support, over 75% were successfully stabilized to recovery or transplantation. Clinicians elect Impella support over IABP for less stable patients, though a high proportion are successfully stabilized. These findings demonstrate the heterogeneity of the cardiogenic shock patient population and may inform future trials to assess the role of different tMCS devices.

Waitlist and transplant outcomes for patients bridged to heart transplantation with Impella 5.0 and 5.5 devices

BACKGROUND

Impella devices are increasingly utilized as a bridge to heart transplantation (BTT) and are now prioritized as Status 2 under the current heart allocation policy. This study evaluated waitlist and post-transplant outcomes of patients supported with Impella 5.0/5.5 devices.

METHODS

The United Network of Organ Sharing registry was used to identify adults waitlisted or transplanted with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 devices from 2010 to 2021. Separate analyses were performed for waitlist and transplantation outcomes for patients supported by Impella 5.0/5.5 devices. Competing outcomes for the waitlist analysis included rates of transplantation, recovery, and death or clinical deterioration. Among patients undergoing transplantation, the primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included rates of rejection, new postoperative dialysis, stroke, and pacemaker implantation after transplantation.

RESULTS

There were 344 patients waitlisted and 394 patients transplanted with an Impella 5.0 (n = 212 and 251) or 5.5 (n = 132 and 143) device. Competing risk regression demonstrated similar likelihood of transplant (subhazard ratio [SHR], 1.33 (0.98-1.81, p = 0.067)) and similar likelihood of death or clinical deterioration (SHR, 0.67 [0.27-1.69, p = 0.400]) for Impella 5.5 patients. In the transplanted cohort, unadjusted 1-year post-transplant survival was comparable at 91.3% versus 94.6% (log-rank p = 0.661) for patients supported by Impella 5.0 or 5.5 device, respectively, a finding that persisted after risk-adjustment (HR 1.22, p = 0.699). Post-transplant complication rates were also comparable between 5.0 and 5.5 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Impella devices can be used as a BTT with excellent survival and minimal post-transplant morbidity. Outcomes were comparable for Impella 5.0 and 5.5 devices.

Use of Impella in Patients Listed for Heart Transplantation

The new United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) policy has resulted in a significantly higher number of temporary mechanical circulatory support device usage such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and intra-aortic balloon pump due to provision of higher priority with their use while on the waiting list. We aimed to identify Impella use in patients awaiting heart transplantation and temporal changes in its usage. The UNOS database was queried between years 2015 and 2019 for patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years, listed to undergo heart transplantation. A total of 378 patients had Impella support while listed for heart transplantation. Impella use skyrocketed from 2015 (1%) to 2019 (4%, p < 0.01). The most substantial increase in Impella use occurred after the UNOS policy change. The patients listed on Impella support after the policy change had significantly lower waiting time (median 12 days vs. 45 days, p < 0.01). More patients with Impella were directly transplanted (80% vs. 56%, p < 0.01) after the policy change, had significantly lower waitlist mortality (25% vs. 13%, p < 0.01) and fewer converted to a durable support (13% vs. 3%). The translatability (likelihood for receiving organs faster) was significantly improved after the policy change. A multivariable Cox regression model showed that post-transplant survival of Impella patients was not adversely affected after the policy change (hazard ratio = 0.9; p = 0.8). This increase in Impella use represents a substantial change in practice patterns of listing and managing patients on the heart transplant waiting list.

Intra-aortic balloon pump for acute-on-chronic heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock

The Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely implanted as temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock (CS). However, its use is declining following the results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial, which failed to show a clinical benefit of IABP in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) related CS. Acute-on-chronic heart failure has become an increasingly recognized, distinct etiology of CS (HF-CS). The pathophysiology of HF-CS differs from ACS-CS, as it typically represents the progression from a state of congestion (with relatively preserved cardiac output) to a low output state with hypoperfusion. The IABP is a "volume displacement pump" that promotes forward flow from a high-capacitance reservoir to low-capacitance vessels, improving peripheral perfusion and decreasing left ventricular afterload in the setting of high filling pressures. The IABP can improve ventricular-vascular coupling and, therefore, myocardial energetics. Additionally, many HF-CS patients are candidates for cardiac replacement therapies (left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation), and, therefore, may benefit from a "bridge" strategy that stabilizes the hemodynamics and end-organ function in preparation for more durable therapies. Notably, the new United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system has recently prioritized patients on IABP support. This review describes the role of IABP for the treatment of HF-CS. It also briefly discusses new strategies for vascular access as well as a fully implantable versions for a longer duration of support.