Switching to Impella 5.0 decreases need for transfusion in patients undergoing temporary mechanical circulatory support

Left Ventricular Unloading With Surgically Implanted Microaxial Flow Pump in Patients on Venoarterial Membrane Oxygenation

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is applied for the treatment of cardiogenic shock. Concomitant left ventricular unloading (LVU) with a microaxial flow pump (mAFP) enables myocardial and pulmonary recovery and may overcome some of the limitations of VA-ECMO. The study included 145 cardiogenic shock patients, 89 (61.4%) of whom were treated with VA-ECMO alone (ECMO group), whereas 56 (38.6%) received LVU with a surgically implanted mAFP on top of VA-ECMO (ECMELLA group). After 2:1 propensity score matching, 30 day and 1 year survival was similar between the groups ( p = 0.62 and 0.68, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, patients who received mAFP in the first 2 hours after VA-ECMO implantation had an improved 30 day (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.23-0.88], p = 0.02) and 1 year survival (HR: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.28-0.97], p = 0.04). The rate of limb ischemia, hemorrhage, and renal replacement therapy were comparable between the propensity score-matched cohorts. Early LVU with a surgically implanted mAFP in patients on VA-ECMO improved short-and long-term survival.

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.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: Left, Right, and Biventricular Devices

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) encompasses a wide array of invasive devices, which provide short-term hemodynamic support for multiple clinical indications. Although initially developed for the management of cardiogenic shock, indications for MCS have expanded to include prophylactic insertion prior to high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment of acute circulatory failure following cardiac surgery, and bridging of end-stage heart failure patients to more definitive therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplantation. A wide variety of devices are available to provide left ventricular, right ventricular, or biventricular support. The choice of a temporary MCS device requires consideration of the clinical scenario, patient characteristics, institution protocols, and provider familiarity and training. In this review, the most common forms of left, right, and biventricular temporary MCS are discussed, along with their indications, contraindications, complications, cannulations, hemodynamic effects, and available clinical data.

Multi-indicator analysis of mechanical blood damage with five clinical ventricular assist devices

PURPOSE

Device-induced blood damage contributes the hemolysis, thrombosis and bleeding complications in patients supported with ventricular assist device (VAD). This study aims to use a multi-indicator method to understand how devices causes blood damage and identify the "hot spots" of blood trauma within VADs.

METHODS

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods were chosen to investigate the hemodynamic features of five clinical VADs (Impella 5.0, UltraMag, CHVAD, HVAD, and HeartMate II) under the same clinical support condition (flow rate of 4.5L/min, pressure head around 75 mmHg). A comprehensive multi-indicator evaluation method including hemodynamic parameters, hemolysis model, thrombotic potential model and bleeding probability model was used to analyze blood damage and assess the hemodynamic performance and hemocompatibility of these VADs.

RESULTS

Simulation results show that shear stress from 50 Pa to 100 Pa plays a major role in blood damage in Impella 5.0, UltraMag and CHVAD, while blood damage in HVAD and HeartMate II is mainly caused by shear stress greater than 100 Pa. Residence time was not the main factor for blood damage in Impella 5.0, and also makes a limited contribution to blood trauma in UltraMag and CHVAD, while it takes a critical role in elevating thrombotic potential in HVAD and HeartMate II. The distribution of regions of high hemolysis risk and high bleeding probability was similar for all these VADs and partially overlapped for high thrombotic potential regions. For Impella 5.0, regions with high hemolysis and bleeding risk were found mainly in the blade tip clearance and diffuser domains, high thrombotic potential regions were almost absent. For UltraMag, regions with high hemolysis, bleeding and thrombosis potential were found in two corners of the inlet pipe, the secondary flow passage, and the impeller eye. For CHVAD, the high-risk regions for hemolysis, bleeding and thrombosis are mainly in the inner side of the secondary flow passage and the middle region of the impeller passage. The narrow hydrodynamic clearance and impeller passage had a high risk of hemolysis and bleeding, and the clearance between the rotor and guide cone and the hydrodynamic clearance had high thrombotic potential. For HeartMate II, regions of high hemolysis risk and bleeding probability were found in the near-wall region of the straightener, the blade tip clearance and the diffuser domain. The corners of the inlet and outlet pipe and the straightener and diffuser regions had high thrombotic potential.

CONCLUSION

The risk of hemolysis, bleeding and thrombosis for these five VADs, in increasing order, was Impella 5.0, UltraMag, CHVAD, HVAD, and HeartMate II. Flow losses caused by the rotor mechanical movement, chaotic flow and narrow clearances increase the blood damage for all these VADs. The multi-indicator analysis can comprehensively evaluate the VAD performance with improved assessment accuracy of CFD.

Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis

Objective

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used for cardiogenic shock (CS). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate which MCS strategy offers advantages.

Methods

A systemic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies included double-blind, randomized controlled, and observational trials, with 30-day follow-ups. Paired independent researchers conducted the screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and consistency and heterogeneity assessment.

Results

We included 39 studies (1 report). No significant difference in 30-day mortality was noted between venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and VA-ECMO plus Impella, Impella, and medical therapy. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the optimal ranking of the interventions was surgical venting plus VA-ECMO, medical therapy, VA-ECMO plus Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, Tandem Heart, VA-ECMO, and Impella plus IABP. Regarding in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the forest plot showed low heterogeneity. The results of the node-splitting approach showed that direct and indirect comparisons had a relatively high consistency.

Conclusions

IABP more effectively reduce the incidence of 30-day mortality compared with VA-ECMO and Impella for the treatment of CS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02493-0.

Multimodal temporary mechanically circulatory assistance for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplantation: a case report

Background

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) remains a serious complication after heart transplantation (HTx). Although there is no therapy available, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may be a bailout strategy in selected cases. Especially in patients with severe biventricular failure, chances of survival remain poor.

Case summary

Here, we report a case of a 56-year-old patient suffering from severe PGD after HTx with biventricular failure (ejection fraction < 20%) who was successfully bridged to recovery of the donor graft by temporary multimodal mechanically circulatory assistance by combining both, VA-ECMO and a microaxial pump (Impella^®, Abiomed, Inc., Danvers, MA, USA), a concept also referred as ECMELLA. During ECMELLA support, the patient experienced multiple severe thoracic bleeding complications with need for four re-thoracotomies and temporary open chest situation. Nevertheless, ventricular function recovered and the patient could be weaned from mechanical circulatory support after 12 days. During follow-up, the patient recovered and was successfully discharged. After the following rehabilitation, the patient now shows no persistent signs of heart failure with normal biventricular function of the cardiac graft.

Discussion

ECMELLA may offer a therapeutic option for patients with severe PGD after HTx. Special awareness and further studies addressing targeted anticoagulation strategies for patients on dual-mechanical support are needed to diminish the incidence of bleeding complications.

A case series analysis on the clinical experience of Impella 5.5® at a large tertiary care centre

Aims

We aimed to detail the early clinical experience with pVAD 5.5 at a large academic medical centre. Impella® 5.5 (Abiomed) is a temporary peripherally inserted left ventricular assist device (pVAD) used for the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). This system has several modifications aimed at improving deliverability and durability over the pVAD 5.0 system, but real‐world experience with this device remains limited.

Methods and results

We collected clinical and outcome data on all patients supported with pVAD 5.5 at our centre between February and December 2020, including procedural and device‐related complications. Fourteen patients with pVAD 5.5 were included. Aetiology of CS was acute myocardial infarction (n = 6), decompensated heart failure (n = 6), suspected myocarditis (n = 1), and post‐cardiotomy CS (n = 1). Four patients received pVAD 5.5 after being on inotropes alone, two were escalated from intra‐aortic balloon pump, two were escalated from pVAD CP, and six patients were transitioned to pVAD 5.5 from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Median duration of pVAD 5.5 support was 12 (interquartile range 7, 25) days. Complications included axillary insertion site haematoma (n = 3), acute kidney injury (n = 3), severe thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and stroke (n = 1). No valve injury or limb complications occurred. Survival to device explant for recovery or transition to another therapy was 11/14 (79%) patients.

Conclusions

In this early experience of the pVAD 5.5, procedural and device‐related complications were observed but were manageable, and overall survival was high in this critically ill cohort, particularly when the device was used as a bridge to other therapies.

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

BACKGROUND

The Abiomed Impella 5.5 (Danvers, MA) is a newly developed axial flow transaortic cardiac support device mounted on a 9 Fr steering catheter with a 21 Fr pump cannula. Impella 5.5 is intended for longer use and was approved for 30 days in 2018. This study evaluated the first-in-man series at six high-volume mechanical circulatory support centers in Germany after CE approval.

METHODS

The first 46 consecutive patients worldwide underwent implantation in six German centers between March 2018 and September 2019 for post-CE approval evaluation. The primary end-point was 30 days and 90 days all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 59.0 ± 11.5 years, and 43 (93.4%) were men. Half of the patients had acute on chronic heart failure. The main indication for Impella 5.5 implantation was ischemic cardiomyopathy and acute myocardial infarction (47.8%). The mean support time was 15.5 ± 24.2 days (range 0-164, median 10 days (IQR = 7-19)) with a total of 712 patient-days on support. The 30 days and 90 days survival rates were 73.9% (95% CI: 63.3-88.9%) and 71.7% (95% CI: 60.7-87.1%), respectively. Additionally, 16 patients (34.8%) were weaned from the device for native heart recovery, and 19 (41.3%) were bridged to a durable device. Fifteen patients (32.6%) were mobilized to a chair, and 15 (32.6%) were ambulatory. We only noted one stroke and found no other thromboembolic complications. No aortic valve damage was observed in the study cohort. Finally, seven patients (15.2 %) had pump thrombosis, and nine (19.6 %) underwent device exchange. Sixteen patients (34.8 %) suffered from bleeding requiring transfusions during the whole treatment course. In ten patients (21.7%), the inflow cannula dislocated into the aortic root.

CONCLUSIONS

The first version of the Impella 5.5 presents promising early outcomes for patients with acute heart failure and expands the spectrum of available devices. The adverse event profile is favorable for short-term devices. Dislocations have been addressed by design changes. With increasing experience with this device, our study suggests that the indications for use will expand to other cardiac shock etiologies and may improve myocardial recovery and survival in patients with cardiogenic shock.