Comparison of ECMO vs ECpella in patients with non post-pericardiotomy cardiogenic shock: An updated meta-analysis

Transarterial embolization to treat a massive hemothorax during mechanical circulatory support via puncturing of the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for patients with cardiogenic shock that is refractory to medical therapy. Bleeding is the most common complication of MCS. Transarterial embolization (TAE) is often performed to treat this complication, because it is a less invasive hemostatic procedure. However, the TAE option needs to be carefully considered during MCS, as the access route may be limited during MCS.

CASE PRESENTATION

A man in his 70 s was diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention via venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and Impella. During treatment in the intensive care unit, he suffered damage to a branch of the internal thoracic artery during a cardiac drainage procedure, which was subsequently treated via emergency TAE. An ECMO return cannula and an Impella sheath were inserted into the patient's right and left femoral arteries, respectively. An approach from the left brachial artery was selected, and the left internal thoracic artery was embolized. Subsequently, the patient required re-intervention to treat re-bleeding from another artery. Because it was difficult to target the target artery from the brachial one, owing to interference from the Impella catheter, the ECMO circuit near the return cannula was punctured and a guiding sheath was inserted. The ECMO flow and the patient's blood pressure decreased following placement of this guiding sheath. We were thus able to maintain the patient's blood pressure by increasing the infusion fluids and Impella flow, and embolize the target artery using a gelatin sponge to achieve hemostasis.

CONCLUSION

When TAE is difficult to perform during MCS using an approach from the upper extremities, a lower extremity approach with a sheath inserted into the ECMO circuit may represent a viable alternative.

ECPELLA as a bridge-to-decision in refractory cardiogenic shock: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

In refractory cardiogenic shock, temporary mechanical support (tMCS) may be crucial for maintaining tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. tMCS can serve as a bridge-to-decision to assess eligibility for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation or heart transplantation, or as a bridge-to-recovery. ECPELLA is a novel tMCS configuration combining venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with Impella. The present study presents the clinical parameters, outcomes, and complications of patients supported with ECPELLA.

METHODS

All patients supported with ECPELLA at University Medical Centre Utrecht between December 2020 and August 2023 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were LVAD implantation/heart transplantation and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with an average age of 51 years, and of whom 70% were males, were included. Causes of cardiogenic shock were acute heart failure (due to acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis, or after cardiac surgery) or chronic heart failure, respectively 70 and 30% of cases. The median duration of ECPELLA support was 164 h (interquartile range 98-210). In 50% of cases, a permanent LVAD was implanted. Cardiac recovery within 30 days was seen in 30% of cases and 30-day mortality rate was 20%. ECPELLA support was associated with major bleeding (40%), haemolysis (25%), vascular complications (30%), kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (50%), and Impella failure requiring extraction (15%).

CONCLUSION

ECPELLA can be successfully used as a bridge to LVAD implantation or as a bridge-to-recovery in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. Despite a significant number of complications, 30-day mortality was lower than observed in previous cohorts.

Left-Ventricular Unloading With Impella During Refractory Cardiac Arrest Treated With Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is the implementation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) during refractory cardiac arrest. The role of left-ventricular (LV) unloading with Impella in addition to VA-ECMO ("ECMELLA") remains unclear during ECPR. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize patients with ECPR receiving LV unloading and to compare in-hospital mortality between ECMELLA and VA-ECMO during ECPR.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and abstract websites of the three largest cardiology societies (American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology).

STUDY SELECTION

Observational studies with adult patients with refractory cardiac arrest receiving ECPR with ECMELLA or VA-ECMO until July 2023 according to the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist.

DATA EXTRACTION

Patient and treatment characteristics and in-hospital mortality from 13 study records at 32 hospitals with a total of 1014 ECPR patients. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were computed with the Mantel-Haenszel test using a random-effects model.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seven hundred sixty-two patients (75.1%) received VA-ECMO and 252 (24.9%) ECMELLA. Compared with VA-ECMO, the ECMELLA group was comprised of more patients with initial shockable electrocardiogram rhythms (58.6% vs. 49.3%), acute myocardial infarctions (79.7% vs. 51.5%), and percutaneous coronary interventions (79.0% vs. 47.5%). VA-ECMO alone was more frequently used in pulmonary embolism (9.5% vs. 0.7%). Age, rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and low-flow times were similar between both groups. ECMELLA support was associated with reduced odds of mortality (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.91]) and higher odds of good neurologic outcome (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.17-4.22]) compared with VA-ECMO support alone. ECMELLA therapy was associated with numerically increased but not significantly higher complication rates. Primary results remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

ECMELLA support was predominantly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction and VA-ECMO for pulmonary embolism. ECMELLA support during ECPR might be associated with improved survival and neurologic outcome despite higher complication rates. However, indications and frequency of ECMELLA support varied strongly between institutions. Further scientific evidence is urgently required to elaborate standardized guidelines for the use of LV unloading during ECPR.

Prevalence of bleeding events in real-world Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device

PURPOSE

Bleeding complication is a critical risk factor for outcomes of acute heart failure patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS), including percutaneous catheter-type heart pumps (Impella). The Japanese registry for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device (J-PVAD) is an ongoing, large-scale, real-world registry to characterize Japanese patients requiring Impella. Here we analyzed bleeding complication profiles in patients who received Impella.

METHODS

All consecutive Japanese patients who received Impella from October 2017 to January 2020 were enrolled. The 30-day survival and bleeding complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1344 patients were included: 653 patients received Impella alone, 685 patients received a combination of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (ECPELLA), and 6 patients had failed Impella delivery. Overall 30-day survival was 67.0%, with Impella alone at 81.9% and ECPELLA at 52.7%. Overall bleeding/hematoma adverse events with a relation or not-excluded relation to Impella was 6.92%. Among them, the rates of hematoma and bleeding from medical device access sites were 1.41% and 4.09%, respectively. There was no difference between etiologies for these events.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first 3-year survival and the safety profile focused on bleeding adverse events from the J-PVAD registry. The results show that the real-world frequency of bleeding adverse events for patients who received Impella was an expected range from previous reports, and future real-world studies should aim to expand this data set to improve outcomes and adverse events.

Left Ventricular Unloading With Impella Versus IABP in Patients With VA-ECMO: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) use for circulatory support in cardiogenic shock results in increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The use of concomitant Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) have been proposed as adjunct devices for LV unloading. The authors sought to compare head-to-head efficacy and safety outcomes between the 2 LV unloading strategies. We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing the use of Impella to IABP in patients on VA-ECMO. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, stroke, limb ischemia, need for continuous renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and hemolysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval and heterogeneity statistic I2 were calculated using a random-effects model. A total of 7 observational studies with 698 patients were included. Patients on VA-ECMO unloaded with Impella vs IABP had similar risk of short-term all-cause mortality, defined as either 30-day or in-hospital mortality- 60.8% vs 64.9% (RR 0.93 [0.71 to 1.21], I2 = 71%). No significant difference was observed in transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, stroke, or limb ischemia between the 2 strategies. However, the use of VA-ECMO with Impella was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (57.2% vs 39.7%) (RR 1.66 [1.12 to 2.44], I2 = 82%) and hemolysis (31% vs 7%) (RR 4.61 [1.24 to 17.17], I2 = 66%) compared with VA-ECMO, along with IABP. In conclusion, in patients requiring VA-ECMO for circulatory support, the concomitant use of Impella or IABP had comparable short-term mortality. However, Impella use was associated with increased risk of major bleeding and hemolysis.

Unexpected deformation of the right coronary artery during percutaneous coronary intervention with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with Impella: a case report

Background

The establishment of cautionary notes regarding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with Impella (ECMELLA) is still lacking.

Case summary

A 68-year-old man was transferred to our hospital with cardiac arrest. ECMELLA insertion was performed via the bilateral femoral artery and vein for refractory ventricular fibrillation. Coronary angiography revealed an occluded lesion in the right coronary artery (RCA). Contrast injection was administered after confirming backflow through the guide catheter (GC) to avoid coronary dissection because the artery pressure was non-pulsatile during total circulation support. Prudent coronary angiography revealed a couple of accordion phenomena. Additionally, coronary angiography showed a shorter distance from the right border of the cardiac silhouette to the RCA and the venous line of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than before PCI. This drastic change in the cardiac silhouette suggested that ECMELLA induced the collapse of the right heart system. Subsequently, a drug-eluting stent was implanted successfully. Final coronary angiography confirmed severe bending in the proximal segment of the RCA, which was absent in the reference coronary angiography. The patient had an uneventful course except for mild cognitive impairment. The computed tomography coronary angiography after ECMELLA removal indicated the RCA without deformation.

Discussion

In the present case, the collapse of the right heart system caused by ECMELLA resulted in RCA deformation. This case also underscored that contrast injection to the coronary artery in total circulation support should be administered after confirmation of backflow through a GC.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults receiving haematopoietic cell transplantation: an international expert statement

Combined advances in haematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and intensive care management have improved the survival of patients with haematological malignancies admitted to the intensive care unit. In cases of refractory respiratory failure or refractory cardiac failure, these advances have led to a renewed interest in advanced life support therapies, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), previously considered inappropriate for these patients due to their poor prognosis. Given the scarcity of evidence-based guidelines on the use of ECMO in patients receiving HCT and the need to provide equitable and sustainable access to ECMO, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, and the International ECMO Network aimed to develop an expert consensus statement on the use of ECMO in adult patients receiving HCT. A steering committee with expertise in ECMO and HCT searched the literature for relevant articles on ECMO, HCT, and immune effector cell therapy, and developed opinion statements through discussions following a Quaker-based consensus approach. An international panel of experts was convened to vote on these expert opinion statements following the Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation statement was followed to prepare this Position Paper. 36 statements were drafted by the steering committee, 33 of which reached strong agreement after the first voting round. The remaining three statements were discussed by all members of the steering committee and expert panel, and rephrased before an additional round of voting. At the conclusion of the process, 33 statements received strong agreement and three weak agreement. This Position Paper could help to guide intensivists and haematologists during the difficult decision-making process regarding ECMO candidacy in adult patients receiving HCT. The statements could also serve as a basis for future research focused on ECMO selection criteria and bedside management.

Meta-analysis of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in combination with intra-aortic balloon pump vs. extracorporeal membrane oxygenation only in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction

Background

Incidence and mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high despite substantial therapy improvements in acute percutaneous coronary intervention over the last decades. Unloading the left ventricle in patients with Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) can be performed by using an intra-aortic balloon pumps' (IABP) afterload reduction, which might be especially beneficial in AMI patients with CS.

Objective

The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of VA-ECMO + IABP vs. VA-ECMO treatment on the mortality of patients with CS due to AMI.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using EMBASE, COCHRANE, and MEDLINE databases. Studies comparing the effect of VA-ECMO + IABP vs. VA-ECMO on mortality of patients with AMI were included. Meta-analyses were performed to analyze the effect of the chosen treatment on 30-day/in-hospital mortality.

Results

Twelve studies were identified by the literature search, including a total of 5,063 patients, 81.5% were male and the mean age was 65.9 years. One thousand one hundred and thirty-six patients received treatment with VA-ECMO in combination with IABP and 2,964 patients received VA-ECMO treatment only. The performed meta-analysis showed decreased mortality at 30-days/in-hospital after VA-ECMO + IABP compared to VA-ECMO only for patients with cardiogenic shock after AMI (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.30-0.44, P≤0.001). Combination of VA-ECMO + IABP was associated with higher rates of weaning success (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53, P < 0.001) without an increase of vascular access complications (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35-2.08, P = 0.72).

Conclusion

In this meta-analysis, combination therapy of VA-ECMO + IABP was superior to VA-ECMO only therapy in patients with CS due to AMI. In the absence of randomized data, these results are hypothesis generating only.

Clinical Validation of the Shock Index, Modified Shock Index, Delta Shock Index, and Shock Index-C for Emergency Department ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a leading cause of death worldwide. A shock index (SI), modified SI (MSI), delta-SI, and shock index-C (SIC) are known predictors of STEMI. This retrospective cohort study was designed to compare the predictive value of the SI, MSI, delta-SI, and SIC with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) risk scales. Method: Patients > 20 years old with STEMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with the Youden index was performed to calculate the optimal cutoff values for these predictors. Results: Overall, 1552 adult STEMI cases were analyzed. The thresholds for the emergency department (ED) SI, MSI, SIC, and TIMI risk scales for in-hospital mortality were 0.75, 0.97, 21.00, and 5.5, respectively. Accordingly, ED SIC had better predictive power than the ED SI and ED MSI. The predictive power was relatively higher than TIMI risk scales, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance. After adjusting for confounding factors, the ED SI > 0.75, MSI > 0.97, SIC > 21.0, and TIMI risk scales > 5.5 were statistically and significantly associated with in-hospital mortality of STEMI. Compared with the ED SI and MSI, SIC (>21.0) had better sensitivity (67.2%, 95% CI, 58.6−75.9%), specificity (83.5%, 95% CI, 81.6−85.4%), PPV (24.8%, 95% CI, 20.2−29.6%), and NPV (96.9%, 95% CI, 96.0−97.9%) for in-hospital mortality of STEMI. Conclusions: SIC had better discrimination ability than the SI, MSI, and delta-SI. Compared with the TIMI risk scales, the ACU value of SIC was still higher. Therefore, SIC might be a convenient and rapid tool for predicting the outcome of STEMI.