Managing vascular access and closure for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support

Post-closure with MANTA fluoroscopic DOT technique for emergent percutaneous mechanical circulatory support and 'bail-out' for large bore arterial hemostasis

BACKGROUND

Large bore arterial hemostasis for emergent MCS initiation in cardiogenic shock and during failures of suture mediated vascular closure devices (VCD) necessitates dry/post-closure technique for successful closure. Use of the alternative MANTA fluoroscopic DOT technique, without depth finder, as post closure and as 'bail-out' in this high-risk patient population is described.

METHODS

All patients who underwent emergent percutaneous transfemoral MCS initiation, without use of upfront sutured-mediated pro-glide VCDs, and procedures where proglide-perclose technique (PPT) failed to achieve hemostasis were post-closed with the alternative MANTA fluoroscopic DOT technique (without depth finder) as primary method or as 'bail-out'. Patient related factors, cardiovascular co-morbidities, clinical indication, distribution of 14F versus 18F MANTA, and types of procedures obtained. Primary outcomes of access site related acute flow-limiting limb ischemia or bleeding requiring intervention analyzed.

RESULTS

27 patients met inclusion criteria; mean age 64 years, majority male 19 (70 %), more than half obese (56 %) with mean BMI 31.06 kg/m². 22 (81 %) had emergent MCS initiation and 5 (19 %) PPT hemostasis failures. Types of percutaneous MCS support included; 11 (44 %) Impella CP, 2 (7 %) 15F arterial ECMO, 6 (22 %) 17F arterial ECMO, 4 (15 %) 19F ECMO. All achieved hemostasis utilizing alternative MANTA fluoroscopic DOT technique without vascular complications of bleeding or acute ischemic limb.

CONCLUSION

The alternative MANTA fluoroscopic DOT technique (without depth finder) can be successfully applied as post-closure for emergent MCS support delayed hemostasis and as bail-out for per-close suture mediated VCD failures for large bore arterial hemostasis.

Strategies for Reducing Vascular and Bleeding Risk for Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In patients at high risk for haemodynamic instability during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), practitioners are increasingly opting for prophylactic mechanical circulatory support, such as the Impella® heart pump (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA). Though Impella-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) ensures haemodynamic stability during the PCI procedure, access-related complication rates have varied significantly in published studies. Reported variability in complication rates relates to many factors, including anticoagulation practices, access and closure strategy, post-procedure care and variations in event definitions. This article aims to outline optimal strategies to minimize vascular and bleeding complications during Impella-supported HRPCI based on previously identified clinical, procedural and postprocedural risk factors. Practices to reduce complications include femoral skills training, standardized protocols to optimize access, closure, anticoagulation management and post-procedural care, as well as the application of techniques and technological advances. Protocols integrating these strategies to mitigate access-related bleeding and vascular complications for Impella-supported procedures can markedly limit vascular access risk as a barrier to appropriate large-bore mechanical circulatory support use in HRPCI.

Optimal bail-out and complication management strategies in protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella

Despite the routine use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) with the Impella heart pump, vascular and bleeding complications may occur during removal with or without pre-closure. To safely close the large-bore access (LBA), post-hoc selection of the appropriate treatment of vascular complications is critical to patient recovery and survival. Femoral artery access is typically utilized for LBA, and percutaneous axillary artery access is a common alternative, especially in the instance of severe peripheral artery disease. Optimization of patient outcomes and efficiency of pMCS can be achieved with adequate arterial access using state-of-the-art techniques. Impella removal techniques with or without pre-closure will be addressed as well as the management of large-bore femoral access complications. In addition, treatment strategies to manage patient deterioration during a protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention will be provided.

Manual compression versus MANTA device for access management after impella removal on the ICU

To compare the safety and efficacy of manual compression versus use of the MANTA closure device for access management after Impella removal on the intensive care unit (ICU). The number of patients treated with percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), namely Impella and ECMO, for complex cardiac procedures or shock, is growing. However, removal of pLVAD and large bore arteriotomy closure among such patients on the ICU remains challenging, since it is associated with a high risk for bleeding and vascular complications. Patients included in a prospective registry between 2017 and 2020 were analyzed. Bleeding and vascular access site complications were assessed and adjudicated according to VARC-2 criteria. We analyzed a cohort of 87 consecutive patients, who underwent access closure after Impella removal on ICU by using either the MANTA device or manual compression. The cohort´s mean age was 66.1 ± 10.7 years and 76 patients (87%) were recovering from CS. Mean support time was 40 h (interquartile range 24–69 h). MANTA was used in 31 patients (35.6%) and manual compression was applied in 56 patients (64.4%). Overall access related bleedings were significantly lower in the MANTA group (6.5% versus 39.3% (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% CI 0.01–0.50; p = 0.001), and there was no significant difference in vascular complications between the two groups (p = 0.55). Our data suggests that the application of the MANTA device directly on the ICU is safe. In addition, it seems to reduce access related bleeding without increasing the risk of vascular complications.

Percutaneous Transvalvular Microaxial Flow Pump Support in Cardiology

The Impella device (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a percutaneous transvalvular microaxial flow pump that is currently used for (1) cardiogenic shock, (2) left ventricular unloading (combination of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella concept), (3) high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions, (4) ablation of ventricular tachycardia, and (5) treatment of right ventricular failure. Impella-assisted forward blood flow increased mean arterial pressure and cardiac output, peripheral tissue perfusion, and coronary blood flow in observational studies and some randomized trials. However, because of the need for large-bore femoral access (14 F for the commonly used Impella CP device) and anticoagulation, the incidences of bleeding and ischemic complications are as much as 44% and 18%, respectively. Hemolysis is reported in as many as 32% of patients and stroke in as many as 13%. Despite the rapidly growing use of the Impella device, there are still insufficient data on its effect on outcome and complications on the basis of large, adequately powered randomized controlled trials. The only 2 small and also underpowered randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock comparing Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump did not show improved mortality. Several larger randomized controlled trials are currently recruiting patients or are in preparation in cardiogenic shock (DanGer Shock [Danish-German Cardiogenic Shock Trial; NCT01633502]), left ventricular unloading (DTU-STEMI [Door-To-Unload in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NCT03947619], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO], and REVERSE [A Prospective Randomised Trial of Early LV Venting Using Impella CP for Recovery in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Managed With VA ECMO; NCT03431467]) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PROTECT IV [Impella-Supported PCI in High-Risk Patients With Complex Coronary Artery Disease and Reduced Left Ventricular Function; NCT04763200]).