Hemodynamics and its predictors during Impella-protected PCI in high risk patients with reduced ejection fraction

Optimized patient selection in high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients with poor left-ventricular (LV) function undergoing elective high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCIs). These patients are often in critical condition and not suitable candidates for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. For the definition of HR-PCI, there is a growing consensus that multiple factors must be considered to define the complexity of PCI. These include haemodynamic status, left-ventricular ejection fraction, clinical characteristics, and concomitant diseases, as well as the complexity of the coronary anatomy/lesions. Although haemodynamic support by percutaneous LV assist devices is commonly adopted in HR-PCI (protected PCI), there are no clear guideline recommendations for indication due to limited published data. Therefore, decisions to use a nonsurgical, minimally invasive procedure in HR-PCI patients should be based on a risk–benefit assessment by a multidisciplinary team. Here, the current evidence and indications for protected PCI will be discussed.

Effect of Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia on Hemodynamics and Pregnancy Outcomes of Severe Preeclampsia Pregnant Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) on hemodynamics and pregnancy outcomes of severe preeclampsia pregnant patients undergoing cesarean section.

METHODS

126 patients with severe preeclampsia admitted to Zhangqiu District People's Hospital from August 2018 to August 2019 were selected as the study subjects and randomly divided into the experimental group (n = 63) and control group (n = 63). After undergoing cesarean section, the patients in the experimental group received CSEA, while those in the control group were given TIVA. After that, the effect of different anesthesia methods on the hemodynamics and pregnancy outcomes of pregnant women was compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, BMI value, weight, height, gestational weeks, SBP, DBP, and residence between the two groups (P > 0.05). The operation duration, the onset time of anesthesia, and delivery time in the experimental group were significantly shorter than those in the control group, with less intraoperative blood loss in the experimental group than that in the control group (P < 0.001). In both groups, MAP and SpO₂ during delivery were significantly lower than those before anesthesia, and HR was significantly higher than that before anesthesia (P < 0.001). In the experimental group, MAP and HR during delivery were significantly lower than those in the control group, and SpO₂ was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.001). The total effective rate of anesthesia in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The Apgar scoring of the newborns in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.001), and the total incidence of postoperative adverse reactions in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CSEA is a reliable anesthesia method for improving the hemodynamics indicators in pregnant patients with severe preeclampsia; such strategy greatly increases the Apgar score of newborns and shortens the anesthesia onset time. Further research will be conducive to establishing a better anesthesia plan for such patients.

Exploring Personal Protection During High-Risk PCI in a COVID-19 Patient: Impella CP Mechanical Support During ULMCA Bifurcation Stenting

The correct management of patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and acute coronary syndrome is still uncertain. We describe the percutaneous treatment of an unprotected left main coronary artery in a patient who is positive for COVID-19 with unstable angina, dyspnea and fever. Particular attention will be dedicated to the measures adopted in the catheterization laboratory to protect the staff and to avoid further spread of the infection. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.)

A Review of Bleeding Risk with Impella-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Collapse

Impact of left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure as a predictor of periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration in patients undergoing Impella supported high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions

Background

An increasing number of high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are performed with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to minimize the risk of periprocedural hemodynamic compromise. Prior studies have demonstrated that an elevated left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) is associated with worse outcome after acute myocardial infarction or cardiac surgery. Although LVEDP is frequently measured, little is known about the usefulness for predicting periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration in high-risk PCI. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of preprocedural measured LVEDP in non-shock patients undergoing high-risk PCI with MCS on periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration.

Methods and Results

We reviewed the PCI protocol and the Automated Impella Controller in a consecutive series of 64 patients (mean age 73 years, 80% male), who underwent high-risk PCI with Impella MCS (period 01/2017–12/2018). LVEDP (17 ± 8 mm Hg) was measured in all cases before Impella insertion and start of PCI. Periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration was defined as: systolic blood pressure (SBP) drop (decrease ≥20 mm Hg or ≤90 mm Hg), or transient loss of arterial pressure pulsatility. Hemodynamic deterioration occurred in 33% (n = 21) of all patients but did not lead to a hemodynamic compromise due to the Impella support. Regression analysis of LVEDP for periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration or in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) showed no significant results.

Conclusion

LVEDP was not associated with periprocedural hemodynamic deterioration or a higher rate of in-hospital MACCE. Our data propose that LVEDP may not be used as a risk stratification variable for MCS usage in non-shock patients undergoing high-risk PCI.

Long-Term Outcomes of Extent of Revascularization in Complex High Risk and Indicated Patients Undergoing Impella-Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Report from the Roma-Verona Registry

Objective

To investigate the effect of extent of revascularization in complex high-risk indicated patients (CHIP) undergoing Impella-protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Background

Complete revascularization has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes. However, the impact of more complete revascularization during Impella-protected PCI in CHIP has not been reported.

Methods

A total of 86 CHIP undergoing elective PCI with Impella 2.5 or Impella CP between April 2007 and December 2016 from 2 high volume Italian centers were included. Baseline, procedural, and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Completeness of coronary revascularization was assessed using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial jeopardy score (BCIS-JS) derived revascularization index (RI). The primary end-point was all-cause mortality. A multivariate regression model was used to identify independent predictors of mortality.

Results

All patients had multivessel disease and were considered unsuitable for surgery. At baseline, 44% had left main disease, 78% had LVEF ≤ 35%, and mean BCIS-JS score was 10±2. The mean BCIS-JS derived RI was 0.7±0.2 and procedural complications were uncommon. At 14-month follow-up, all-cause mortality was 10.5%. At follow-up, 67.4% of CHIP had LVEF ≥ 35% compared to 22.1% before Impella protected-PCI. Higher BCIS-JS RI was significantly associated with LVEF improvement (p=0.002). BCIS-JS RI of ≤ 0.8 (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01- 0.92, and p = 0.042) was an independent predictor of mortality.

Conclusions

These results support the practice of percutaneous Impella use for protected PCI in CHIP. A more complete revascularization was associated with significant LVEF improvement and survival.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for refractory heart failure: the German Heart Center Berlin experience

Background

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) offers a valuable option for treatment of refractory heart failure. We present our experience with selected MCS devices in cardiogenic shock of different etiologies.

Methods

We retrospectively studied patients who were treated in our institution between 01/2016 and 07/2018. Patients receiving only veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support were excluded. Left ventricular support patients received Impella; right ventricular support was conducted using Levitronix CentriMag.

Results

Thirty-seven patients received an Impella left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Etiology was: acute on chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICMP; n=12), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; n=11), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCMP; n=7) and toxic cardiomyopathy (TCMP; n=2). Two patients presented with postcardiotomy shock and acute myocarditis, respectively. In one case, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy was diagnosed. Impella was used solely in 28 patients (Impella group) with an in-hospital survival of 37%. In nine patients, Impella was used in combination with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) implantation (ECMELLA group)-in-hospital survival was 33%. In the Impella group six patients recovered, six received a long-term VAD and 16 died on device. In the ECMELLA group one patient recovered, three received a long-term VAD and five died. The majority of CentriMag implantations as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) were necessary after LVAD implantation (n=52); of these patients, 14 recovered, eight received long-term VAD and 30 died. The remaining 17 patients were supported by RVAD due to AMI (n=7); postcardiotomy (n=7); right heart failure after heart transplantation (n=2) and ICMP (n=1). Six of these patients recovered, two required long-term VAD and nine died.

Conclusions

Survival after MCS implantation for left as well as right heart failure in cardiogenic shock remains low, but is superior to that of patients without mechanical support. Short-term MCS remains an option of choice if right, left or biventricular support is needed.