First in man evaluation of a novel circulatory support device: Early experience with the Impella 5.5 after CE mark approval in Germany

Special Considerations for Advanced Heart Failure Surgeries: Durable Left Ventricular Devices and Heart Transplantation

Heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) represent two definitive therapies for end-stage heart failure in the modern era. Despite technological advances, both treatment modalities continue to experience unique risks that impact surgical and perioperative decision-making. Here, we review special populations and factors that impact risk in LVAD and heart transplant surgery and examine critical decisions in the management of these patients. As both heart transplantation and the use of durable LVADs as destination therapy continue to increase, these considerations will be of increasing relevance in managing advanced heart failure and improving outcomes.

Patient Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes With Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Data regarding outcomes with Impella 5.5 are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize patient and treatment characteristics and early clinical outcomes among patients supported by Impella 5.5. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from September 2019 to March 2023. Studies reporting outcomes in greater than or equal to 5 patients were included for review. Patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and early clinical outcomes were extracted. Outcomes included adverse events, survival to hospital discharge, and 30 day survival. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled effects for survival outcomes. Assessment for bias was performed using funnel plots and Egger's tests. Fifteen studies were included for qualitative review, representing 707 patients. Mean duration of support was 9.9 ± 8.2 days. On meta-analysis of 13 studies reporting survival outcomes, survival to hospital discharge was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58-78%), and 30 day survival was 65% (95% CI, 56-74%) among patients with Impella devices predominantly supported by Impella 5.5 (>60%). There was significant study heterogeneity for these outcomes. Among 294 patients with Impella 5.5 only, survival to discharge was 78% (95% CI, 72-82%) with no significant study heterogeneity. This data present early benchmarks for outcomes with Impella 5.5 as clinical experience with these devices accrues.

Surgically implanted endovascular, microaxial left ventricular assist device: A single institution study

Objective

The Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Inc), a surgically implanted endovascular microaxial left ventricular assist device, is increasingly used worldwide and there have been more than 10,000 implants. The purpose of this study is to describe a large-volume, single-center experience with the use of the Impella 5.5.

Methods

Data were obtained retrospectively from patients supported with the Impella 5.5 implanted at our institution from May 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Demographic, operative, and postoperative outcomes for each group are described. Results are reported in median (interquartile range) or n (%). The entire cohort was divided into 5 main groups based on the intention to treat at the time of the Impella 5.5 implantation: (1) patients who had a planned Impella 5.5 implanted at the time of high-risk cardiac surgery; (2) patients with cardiogenic shock; (3) patients bridged to a durable left ventricular assist device; (4) patients bridged to transplant; and (5) patients with postcardiotomy shock who received an unplanned Impella 5.5 implant.

Results

A total of 126 patients were supported with the Impella 5.5. Overall survival to device explant was 76.2%, with 67.5% surviving to discharge. Midterm survival was assessed with a median follow-up time of 318 days and demonstrated an overall survival of 60.3% and a median of 650 days (549-752).

Conclusions

Outcomes after using the Impella 5.5 are variable depending on the indication of use. Patient selection may be of utmost importance and requires further experience with this device to determine who will benefit from insertion.

Reconsidering FDA Guidelines: A Single-Center Experience of Prolonged Impella 5.5 Support

OBJECTIVE

Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mechanical circulatory support for ≤14 days. It is unknown whether prolonged support is associated with worse outcomes. We sought to review our single-center experience with Impella 5.5 and compare outcomes based on support duration.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed adult patients (≥18 years old) supported with Impella 5.5 at our institution (May 2020 to April 2023). Patients on prolonged support (>14 days) were compared with those supported for ≤14 days.

RESULTS

There were 31 patients supported with Impella 5.5 including 14 (45.2%) supported >14 days. Median support duration for those on prolonged support was 43.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 25 to 63.5) days versus 8 (IQR 6, 13) days for those who were not (P < 0.001). Overall, the device-related complication rate was 9.7% and did not differ between groups (P = 0.08). Overall, 30-day postimplant survival was 71% and did not differ by support duration (P = 0.2). In-hospital mortality was 32% and did not differ between cohorts (P > 0.99). Among those surviving to explant (n = 22), long-term strategy included bridge to durable ventricular assist device (18%, n = 4), cardiac transplant (55%, n = 12), and cardiac recovery (27%, n = 6).

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk patients with cardiogenic shock may be supported with Impella 5.5 beyond the FDA-approved duration without increased risk of complications or mortality.

Clinical outcomes of hundred large Impella implantations in cardiogenic shock patients based on individual clinical scenarios

BACKGROUND

Large Impella systems (5.0 or 5.5; i.e., Impella 5+) (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) help achieve better clinical outcomes through relevant left ventricular unloading in acute cardiogenic shock (CS). Here, we report our experience with Impella 5+, while focusing on the clinical outcomes depending on individual case scenarios in patients with acute CS.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective observational study included 100 Impella 5+ implantations conducted on patients with acute CS from November 2018 to October 2021. After excluding 10 reimplantation cases, 90 cases were enrolled for further analysis.

RESULTS

In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 56.7% (n = 51) and 48.9% (n = 44), respectively. In-hospital mortality was lower in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) than in non-AMI patients (p = 0.07). Young age and low lactate levels were the independent predictors of successful transition and survival after permanent mechanical circulatory support/heart transplantation (pMCS/HTX) (age, p = 0.03; lactate level, p = 0.04; survived after pMCS/HTX, n = 11; died on Impella, n = 41). During simultaneous utilization of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy and Impella 5+, termed ECMELLA therapy, high dose of noradrenaline was a predictive factor for in-hospital mortality by multivariate analysis (n = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that enhanced Impella support might have better clinical outcomes among acute CS patients supported with large Impella, those with AMI than those with no AMI. Young age and low lactate levels were predictors of successful bridging to pMCS/HTX and favorable clinical outcomes thereafter. The clinical outcomes of ECMELLA therapy might depend on noradrenaline dose at the time of Impella 5+ implantation.

Impella 5.5 as a bridge to heart transplantation: Waitlist outcomes in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation policy change has led to a significant increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients listed for orthotopic heart transplantation. However, there has been a paucity of data regarding the newest generation Impella 5.5, which received FDA approval in 2019.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for all adults awaiting orthotopic heart transplantation who received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period. Waitlist, device, and early post-transplant outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 464 patients received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period with a median waitlist time of 19 days. Among them, 402 (87%) patients were ultimately transplanted, with 378 (81%) being directly bridged to transplant with the device. Waitlist death (7%) and clinical deterioration (5%) were the most common reasons for waitlist removal. Device complications and failure were uncommon (<5%). The most common post-transplant complication was acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (16%). Survival at 1-year post-transplant survival was 89.5%.

CONCLUSION

Since its approval, the Impella 5.5 has been increasingly used as a bridge to transplant. This analysis demonstrates robust waitlist and post-transplant outcomes with minimal device-related and postoperative complications.

Temporary circulatory support with surgically implanted microaxial pumps in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock following coronary artery bypass surgery

Objectives

Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery may develop postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. In these cases, implantation of an Impella 5.0 or 5.5 microaxial pump offers full hemodynamic support while simultaneously unloading of the left ventricle.

Methods

Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data of all patients receiving postoperative support with an Impella 5.0 or 5.5 after CABG surgery between September 2017 and October 2022 were retrospectively collected. Cohort built-up was performed according to the timing of Impella implantation, either simultaneous during CABG surgery or delayed.

Results

A total of n = 42 patients received postoperative Impella support, of whom 27 patients underwent simultaneous Impella implantation during CABG surgery and 15 patients underwent delayed Impella therapy. Preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was similarly low in both groups (26.7 ± 0.7% vs 24.8 ± 11.3%; P = .32). In the delayed cohort, Impella implantation was performed after a median of 1 (1; 2) days after CABG surgery. Survival after 30 days (75.6% vs 47.6%, P = .04) and 1 year (69.4% vs 29.8%, P = .03) was better in the cohort receiving simultaneous Impella implantation.

Conclusions

The combined advantages of hemodynamic support and LV unloading with microaxial pumps may lead to a favorable survival in patients with left ventricular failure following CABG surgery. Early implantation during the initial surgery shows a trend toward a more favorable survival as compared with patients receiving delayed support.

Short-term mechanical support with the Impella 5.x for mitral valve surgery in advanced heart failure-protected cardiac surgery

Introduction

Surgical treatment of patients with mitral valve regurgitation and advanced heart failure remains challenging. In order to avoid peri-operative low cardiac output, Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (5.x), implanted electively in a one-stage procedure, may serve as a peri-operative short-term mechanical circulatory support system (st-MCS) in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery.

Methods

Between July 2017 and April 2022, 11 consecutive patients underwent high-risk mitral valve surgery for mitral regurgitation supported with an Impella 5.x system (Abiomed, Inc. Danvers, MA). All patients were discussed in the heart team and were either not eligible for transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) or surgery was considered favorable. In all cases, the indication for Impella 5.x implantation was made during the preoperative planning phase.

Results

The mean age at the time of surgery was 61.6 ± 7.7 years. All patients presented with mitral regurgitation due to either ischemic (n = 5) or dilatative (n = 6) cardiomyopathy with a mean ejection fraction of 21 ± 4% (EuroScore II 6.1 ± 2.5). Uneventful mitral valve repair (n = 8) or replacement (n = 3) was performed via median sternotomy (n = 8) or right lateral mini thoracotomy (n = 3). In six patients, concomitant procedures, either tricuspid valve repair, aortic valve replacement or CABG were necessary. The mean duration on Impella support was 8 ± 5 days. All, but one patient, were successfully weaned from st-MCS, with no Impella-related complications. 30-day survival was 90.9%.

Conclusion

Protected cardiac surgery with st-MCS using the Impella 5.x is safe and feasible when applied in high-risk mitral valve surgery without st-MCS-related complications, resulting in excellent outcomes. This strategy might offer an alternative and comprehensive approach for the treatment of patients with mitral regurgitation in advanced heart failure, deemed ineligible for TEER or with need of concomitant surgery.

Unloading, ablation, bridging and transplant: different indications and treatments using the Impella 5.5 as longer-term circulatory support in one patient-an interdisciplinary case report

Background

In patients with cardiogenic shock the clinical treatment often involves temporary mechanical circulatory support for initial haemodynamic stabilization to enable further assessment of therapeutic strategies. The surgically implanted Impella 5.5 can be used for several indications like ventricular unloading, haemodynamic support during high-risk interventions, and as a bridge-to-transplant strategy.We present an interdisciplinary managed case of using Impella 5.5 for multiple indications and treatment strategies in one patient.

Case summary

A 66-year-old patient with known dilated cardiomyopathy was admitted with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and underwent urgent coronary bypass grafting. His native heart function did not recover and he experienced recurrent episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and electrical storm. He was evaluated for heart transplantation (OHT) and received a VT-ablation. However, he suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) with subsequent implantation of an extracorporeal life support system (ECLS). After surgical placement of an Impella 5.5 due to left ventricular distension and pulmonary congestion, the ECLS was successfully weaned. He showed good neurological outcomes and underwent another high-risk VT-ablation. The patient was further stabilized under Impella 5.5 support in a bridge-to-transplant strategy. After 34 days he underwent a successful OHT.

Discussion

In this interdisciplinary case report the surgically implanted Impella 5.5 as temporary mechanical circulatory support was used for multiple different indications and treatment strategies like ventricular unloading, haemodynamic support during high-risk interventions, and as bridge-to-transplant strategy in one patient.

Bridging with surgically placed microaxial left ventricular assist devices: a high-volume centre experience

OBJECTIVES

The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 have largely superseded non-ambulatory temporary mechanical support devices; yet, clinical outcomes are predominantly limited to small series: this study presents the experience of a high-volume centre.

METHODS

An institutional clinical registry was used to identify all patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent Impella 5.0 or 5.5 implantation from January 2014 to March 2022. The primary outcome was survival to device explantation.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 221 patients, including 146 (66.1%) Impella 5.0 and 75 (33.9%) Impella 5.5 patients. The primary aetiology was non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (50.7%, n = 112), ischaemic cardiomyopathy (23.1%, n = 51) and acute myocardial infarction (26.2%, n = 58). Patients were prospectively classified according to strategy as bridge to transplant (47.5%, n = 105), bridge to durable device (13.6%, n = 30) or bridge to recovery (38.9%, n = 86). Patients were predominantly Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 1 or 2 (95.0%, n = 210). The median bridging duration was 14 (range 0-137) days. Device exchange, Ischaemic stroke and ipsilateral arm ischaemia occurred in 8.1% (n = 18), 2.7% (n = 6) and 1.8% (n = 4) of patients, respectively. Compared to the 75 most recent Impella 5.0 patients, Impella 5.5 patients (n = 75) had lower rates of device exchange (4.0%, n = 3 vs 13.3%, n = 10, P = 0.04). Overall, 70.1% (n = 155) of patients survived to Impella explantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 provide safe and effective temporary mechanical support in appropriately selected patients with cardiogenic shock. The newer device generation may have a lower requirement for device exchange as compared to its predecessor.

Clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes in patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVAD)

BACKGROUND

Peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is a rare cause of heart failure (HF), presenting with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction either at the end of pregnancy or in the months following delivery. In rare cases, PPCM leads to severe impairment of LV function, refractory cardiogenic shock or advanced HF. LV assist devices (LVAD) have been shown to be a feasible treatment option in advanced HF. However, little is known about long-term outcomes and prognosis of PPCM patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from PPCM patients undergoing LVAD implantation in two tertiary centers with respect to long-term outcomes was performed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients of median age 30 (18-39) years were included. Eight patients were experiencing cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) at implantation. Seven patients were implanted within 1 month of their PPCM diagnosis. Median duration of LVAD support was 19 (2-92) months with median follow up of 67 (18-136) months (100% complete). In-hospital and 1-year mortality were 0% and 8.3%, respectively. Two patients died on LVAD support, four patients were successfully bridged to transplantation, two patients are still on LVAD, and four were successfully weaned due to sufficient LV recovery (one died after LV function deteriorated again).

CONCLUSION

LVAD treatment of decompensated end-stage PPCM is feasible. Early LVAD provision led to hemodynamic stabilization in our cohort and facilitated safe LV recovery in one third of these young female patients.

Improved clinical outcomes associated with the Impella 5.5 compared to the Impella 5.0 in contemporary cardiogenic shock and heart failure patients

A redesigned surgically implanted heart pump incorporates several design changes from the prior device generation, but no published comparative data demonstrate if these changes translate to improved outcomes. We retrospectively compared clinical characteristics and outcomes, drawn from an FDA-mandated QA database, for contemporary patients treated with the Impella 5.5 or Impella 5.0 for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS), cardiomyopathy, or postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS). A total of 1238 patients at 290 US sites were included for analysis. Patients receiving the Impella 5.5 had significantly higher survival through explant (i.e., successfully weaned or bridged to heart replacement therapy) than those receiving the Impella 5.0 in all 3 settings: AMICS (70.5% vs 56.8%; p = 0.005), cardiomyopathy (88.1% vs 76.9%; p = 0.001), and PCCS (76.1% vs 55.7%; p = 0.003). Duration of support was significantly longer for Impella 5.5 patients with AMICS (9.2 vs 6.1 days; p = 0.008) and cardiomyopathy (10.7 vs 8.1 days; p < 0.001).

Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used to support patients with cardiogenic shock; however, outcome results are limited to single-center studies, registry data and select reviews. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching three databases for relevant studies reporting on microaxial LVAD use in adults with cardiogenic shock. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) based on short-term mortality (primary outcome), long-term mortality and device complications (secondary outcomes). We assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE approaches, respectively. A total of 63 observational studies (3896 patients), 6 propensity-score matched (PSM) studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (384 patients). The pooled short-term mortality from observational studies was 46.5% (95%-CI: 42.7–50.3%); this was 48.9% (95%-CI: 43.8–54.1%) amongst PSM studies and RCTs. The pooled mortality at 90 days, 6 months and 1 year was 41.8%, 51.1% and 54.3%, respectively. Hemolysis and access-site bleeding were the most common complications, each with a pooled incidence of around 20%. The reported mortality rate of microaxial LVADs was not significantly lower than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP). Current evidence does not suggest any mortality benefit when compared to ECMO or IABP.

Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support

Despite the growing utilization of a large microaxial pump, i. e., Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) (Impella 5+) for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), adverse events including the necessity of re-implantation have not been well discussed. In all 67 patients, in-hospital mortality was 52.2% (n = 35). Explantation of Impella 5+ was performed in 39 patients (58.2%), 22 of whom (32.8%) recovered under Impella 5+, and ten further patients (14.9%) survived after a successful transition to permanent mechanical circulatory support. Embolic events were considerable complications in each access. They occurred in the right arm after the removal of Impella 5+ via a subclavian artery (SA) (n = 3, 9.1%) or in the form of leg ischemia in patients with Impella 5+ via femoral artery (FA) (n = 2, 33.3%). Re-implantation was necessary for 10 patients (14.9%) due to 1) recurrent CS (n = 3), 2) pump thrombosis (n = 5), or 3) pump dislocation (n = 2), all of which were successfully performed via the same access route. In univariate analysis, FA access was a significant risk factor for Impella dysfunction compared to SA access (FA vs. SA, 42.9% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.05, odds ratio 6.88). No statistical difference of overall mortality was observed in patients with Impella 5+ re-implantation (n = 10) compared to patients with primary Impella 5+ support (n = 57) (80.0% (n = 8/10) vs. 47.4% (n = 27/57), p = 0.09). Our results suggested the acceptable clinical outcome of Impella 5+ despite a 15% re-implantation rate. Our observational data may merit further analysis of anticoagulation strategies, including risk stratification for embolic events.

Early experience with the Impella pump: Single-center registry

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of mechanical circulatory support technologies, patients presenting with cardiogenic shock have gained access to various treatment opportunities which were not until recently available. The Impella® pump (Abiomed, Danvers, USA) is a minimally invasive device which provides excellent left ventricular unloading and full circulatory support. The aim of the study was to review our center's experience with Impella® and to analyze the major adverse events associated with the device.

METHODS

From January 2020 to January 2022, a total of 32 patients underwent Impella® implantation at our center for various indications.

RESULTS

The mean age at surgery was 60.3 ± 12.4 years and 9.4% were female. All patients presented with acute cardiogenic shock in INTERMACS Class I (53.1%) and INTERMACS Class II (46.9%). Twenty-six patients (81.25%) out of the whole cohort have been mobilized on Impella® support. Seventeen patients (53.1%) have been weaned from the Impella® support and 10 patients (31.3%) have been bridged to durable LVAD. The median time on Impella® was 7 days (IQR 5.0-11.0). 30-day mortality was 37.5%, with 56.25% survival until hospital discharge. Only one patient developed vascular complications consisting of arm hypoperfusion. There were no cases of stroke on Impella® support.

CONCLUSION

The Impella® axial-flow pump seems an appropriate therapeutic option for patients with acute cardiogenic shock requiring partial or full hemodynamic support. It also provides sufficient left ventricular unloading to allow full mobilization and neurological assessment of the patients. Furthermore, Impella® offers a high rate of myocardial recovery.

Device profile of the Impella 5.0 and 5.5 system for mechanical circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock: overview of its safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Trans-valvular micro-axial flow pumps such as Impella are increasingly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock [CS]. A number of different Impella devices are now available providing a wide range of cardiac output. Among these, the Impella 5.0 and recently introduced Impella 5.5 pumps can provides 5.55 L/min of flow, enabling complete left ventricular support with more favorable hemodynamic effects on myocardial oxygen consumption and left ventricular unloading. These devices require placement of a surgical conduit graft for endovascular delivery, but are increasingly being used in patients with CS due to acutely decompensated heart failure [ADHF], acute myocardial infarction [AMI] and after cardiac surgery as a bridge to transplant or durable ventricular assist device surgery or myocardial recovery.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the device profile and use of the Impella 5.0 and 5.5 systems in patients with CS. Specifically; we reviewed the published literature for Impella 5.0 device to summarize data regarding safety and efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 are trans-valvular micro-axial flow pumps for which the current data suggest excellent safety and efficacy profiles as approaches to provide circulatory support, myocardial unloading, and axillary placement enabling patient mobilization and rehabilitation.

ABBREVIATIONS

pMCS, Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices; CS, Cardiogenic shock; ADHF, Acute decompensated heart failure; AMI, Acute myocardial infarction; LVAD, Left ventricular assist deviceI; ABP, Intra-aortic balloon pump; VA-ECLS, Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support.