The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: The Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience*:

Analysis of 24-hour Death Risk Factors in Circulatory Failure Patients Treated with Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the factors affecting short-term prognosis of circulatory failure patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) treatment.

METHODS

A total of 136 patients undergoing VA-ECMO were enrolled in this study and subsequently divided into the death group (n=35) and the survival group (n=101) based on whether death occurred during hospitalisation. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) running time, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, costs, and ECMO complications were then compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The average age of all patients undergoing ECMO was 47.64±16.78 years (53.2±16.20 years in the death group and 45.713±16.62 years in the survival group) (P=0.022). Patients in the survival group exhibited a clear downward trend in lactic acid value following ECMO treatment compared to those in the death group. Total hospitalisation stay was longer in the survival group (35 days) than in the death group (15.5 days) (P<0.001). In the analysis of ECMO complications, the incidence of neurological complications, renal failure, limb complications, and infection were higher in the death group than in the survival group (P<0.05 for all). Specifically, as a risk factor for patient survival and discharge, the occurrence of infection will lead to increased hospitalisation stays and costs (P<0.05 for both).

CONCLUSION

Complications such as kidney failure and infection are associated with in-hospital death, and ECMO-related complications should be actively prevented to improve the survival rate of VA-ECMO treatment.

Rational and Initiative of the Impella in Cardiac Surgery (ImCarS) Register Platform

OBJECTIVES

 Cardiac support systems are being used increasingly more due to the growing prevalence of heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Reducing cardiac afterload, intracardiac pressure, and flow support are important factors. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and intracardiac microaxial pump systems (Impella) as non-permanent MCS (mechanical circulatory support) are being used increasingly.

METHODS

 We reviewed the recent literature and developed an international European registry for non-permanent MCS.

RESULTS

 Life-threatening conditions that are observed preoperatively often include reduced left ventricular function, systemic hypoperfusion, myocardial infarction, acute and chronic heart failure, myocarditis, and valve vitia. Postoperative complications that are commonly observed include severe systemic inflammatory response, ischemia-reperfusion injury, trauma-related disorders, which ultimately may lead to low cardiac output (CO) syndrome and organ dysfunctions, which necessitates a prolonged ICU stay. Choosing the appropriate device for support is critical. The management strategies and complications differ by system. The "heart-team" approach is inevitably needed.However despite previous efforts to elucidate these topics, it remains largely unclear which patients benefit from certain systems, when is the right time to initiate (MCS), which support system is appropriate, what is the optimal level and type of support, which therapeutic additive and supportive strategies should be considered and ultimately, what are the future prospects and therapeutic developments.

CONCLUSION

 The European cardiac surgical register ImCarS has been established as an IIT with the overall aim to evaluate data received from the daily clinical practice in cardiac surgery. Interested colleagues are cordially invited to join the register.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

 DRKS00024560.

POSITIVE ETHICS VOTE

 AZ 246/20 Faculty of Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University-Gießen.

Budget Impact Analysis of Impella CP® Utilization in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock in France: A Health Economic Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Early detection and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) is crucial to avoid irreparable multiorgan damage and mortality. Impella CP® is a novel temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device associated with greater hemodynamic support and significantly fewer device-related complications compared with other MCS devices, e.g., intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The present study evaluated the budget impact of introducing Impella CP versus IABP and VA-ECMO in patients with CS following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) in France.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to compare the cost of introducing Impella CP with continuing IABP and VA-ECMO treatment from a Mandatory Health Insurance (MHI) perspective in France over a 5-year time horizon, with 700 patients with refractory CS assumed to be eligible for treatment per year. Costs associated with Impella CP and device-related complications for all interventions were captured and clinical input data were based on published sources. Scenario analyses were performed around key parameters.

RESULTS

Introducing Impella CP was associated with cumulative cost savings of EUR 2.7 million over 5 years, versus continuing current clinical practice with IABP and VA-ECMO. Cost savings were achieved in every year of the analysis and driven by the lower incidence of device-related complications with Impella CP, with estimated 5-year cost savings of EUR 22.4 million due to avoidance of complications. Total cost savings of more than EUR 250,000 were projected in the first year of the analysis, which increased as the market share of Impella CP was increased. Scenario analyses indicated that the findings of the analysis were robust.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with Impella CP in adult patients aged less than 75 years in a state of refractory CS following an MI was projected to lead to substantial cost savings from an MHI perspective in France, compared with continuing current clinical practice.

Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. Current Status and Unresolved Targets for Subsequent Research

Mechanical reperfusion with primary angioplasty, as the treatment of choice in acute myocardial infarction (MI), is associated not only with a high percentage of full epicardial and tissue reperfusion but also with a very good immediate and long-term clinical outcome. However, the Achilles heel of MI treatment is its ensemble of complications, such as cardiogenic shock due to severe systolic and/or diastolic dysfunction or MI mechanical complications, including perforation of the left ventricular free wall, papillary muscle rupture with acute mitral regurgitation and ventricular septal rupture. They are associated with an increased or, sometimes, with an extremely high mortality rate, determining the overall mortality in an MI patient population. In this review we summarize the mechanisms of MI complications, current therapeutic management and alternative directions for overcoming their devastating consequences. Moreover, we have sought to indicate gaps in the evidence on current treatments as the potential targets for further clinical research. From the perspective of mortality trends that are not improving, the forthcoming therapeutic management of complicated MI will require an individualized and novel approach based on their thorough pathobiology.

Efficacy and safety of Impella 5.0 in cardiogenic shock: an updated systematic review

Aim: The impact on safety and efficacy outcomes of Impella 5.0 in cardiogenic shock (CS) has not been systematically assessed. Materials & methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature (PROSPERO protocol: CRD42020164680) to critically appraise available evidence on Impella 5.0 comparative safety, efficacy and effectiveness. Results: Of 244 retrieved citations, 17 original articles met the a priori defined inclusion criteria. All included studies had a retrospective study design and, overall, reported on, respectively, 52 and 67 different safety and efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. Thirty-day survival rates ranged from 40 to 94%, myocardial recovery from 18 to 93%. Conclusion: Impella 5.0 provides a full cardiac support, it is associated with a lower rate of vascular complications, it represents a valuable bridge-to-decision and allows for resolution of intercurrent clinical conditions. As available data suggest Impella 5.0 good performance in CS of various etiologies, more solid evidence will come from much-needed large-scale all-comer registries and prospective multicenter randomized trials.

Axial flow ventricular assist devices in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the leading cause of death in patients hospitalised with acute myocardial infarction with mortality as high as 40%-50% prior to hospital discharge. The failure of inotropic therapy to maintain adequate perfusion and to prevent irreversible end-organ failure has led to attempts to improve outcomes by mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. Axial flow ventricular assist devices, namely Impella, are an attractive therapeutic option due to their positive haemodynamic benefits and ease of use. Despite clear beneficial haemodynamic effects, which should significantly impact on the pathophysiology of CS, there are currently no clear data to support their use in the reduction of clinical end points such as cardiac death. This review summarises and critically evaluates the current scientific evidence for the use of axial flow ventricular assist devices and highlights gaps in our understanding. Given such gaps, a consensus multidisciplinary approach, predicated on emphasising timely diagnosis and appropriate use of MCS, is vital to ensure that the right patient is paired with the right device at the right time.

Biventricular Unloading with Impella and Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Severe Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: Implications from the Combined Use of the Devices and Prognostic Risk Factors of Survival

Since mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have become integral component in the therapy of refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS), we identified 67 patients in biventricular support with Impella and venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for RCS between February 2013 and December 2019 and evaluated the risk factors of mortality in this setting. Mean age was 61.07 ± 10.7 and 54 (80.6%) patients were male. Main cause of RCS was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (74.6%), while 44 (65.7%) were resuscitated prior to admission. The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) score on admission was 73.54 ± 16.03 and 12.25 ± 2.71, respectively, corresponding to an expected mortality of higher than 80%. Vasopressor doses and lactate levels were significantly decreased within 72 h on biventricular support (p < 0.05 for both). Overall, 17 (25.4%) patients were discharged to cardiac rehabilitation and 5 patients (7.5%) were bridged successfully to ventricular assist device implantation, leading to a total of 32.8% survival on hospital discharge. The 6-month survival was 31.3%. Lactate > 6 mmol/L, vasoactive score > 100 and pH < 7.26 on initiation of biventricular support, as well as Charlson comorbity index > 3 and prior resuscitation were independent predictors of survival. In conclusion, biventricular support with Impella and VA-ECMO in patients with RCS is feasible and efficient leading to a better survival than predicted through traditional risk scores, mainly via significant hemodynamic improvement and reduction in lactate levels.

Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Different Mechanical Hemodynamic Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock or High-Risk Pci: a Network Meta-Analysis of Thirty-Seven Trials

BACKGROUND

With more advanced mechanical hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) or high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HS-PCI), the morality rate is now significantly lower than before. While previous studies showed that intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) did not reduce the risk of mortality in patients with CS compared to conservative treatment, the efficacy in other mechanical circulatory support (MCS) trials was inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this network meta-analysis to assess the short-term efficacy and safety of different intervention measures for patients with CS or who underwent HS-PCI.

METHODS

Four online databases were searched. From the initial 1,550 articles, we screened 38 studies (an extra 14 studies from references) into this analysis, including a total of 11,270 patients from five interventions (pharmacotherapy, IABP, pMCS, ECMO alone, and ECMO+IABP).

RESULT

The short-term efficacy was determined by 30-day or in-hospital mortality. ECMO+IABP significantly reduced mortality compared with pMCS and ECMO alone (OR = 1.85, 95% CrI [1.03-3.26]; OR = 1.89, 95% CrI [1.19-3.01], respectively). ECMO+IABP did not show reduced mortality when compared with pharmacotherapy and IABP (OR = 1.73, 95% CrI [0.97-3.82]; OR = 1.67, 95% CrI [0.98-2.89], respectively). The rank probability, however, supported that ECMO+IABP might be a more suitable intervention in improving mortality for patients with CS or who underwent HS-PCI. Regarding bleeding, compared with other invasive intervention measures, IABP showed a trend of reduced bleeding (with pMCS OR = 3.86, 95% CrI [1.53-10.66]; with ECMO alone OR = 3.74, 95% CrI [1.13-13.78]; with ECMO+IABP OR = 4.80, 95% CrI [1.61-18.53]). No difference was found in stroke, myocardial infarction, limb ischemia, and hemolysis among the invasive therapies evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Following this analysis, ECMO+IABP might be a more suitable intervention measure in improving short-term mortality for patients with CS and who underwent HS-PCI. However, the result was limited by the lack of sufficient direct comparisons and evidence from randomized controlled trials. Moreover, bleeding and other device-related complications should be considered in clinical applications.

Anticoagulation Management for Impella Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices: An Analysis of a Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Impella devices offer temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. The manufacturer recommends systemic anticoagulation with a target activated clotting time of 160 to 180 s but provides no guidance on how to manage both the heparinized purge solution and the additional intravenous heparin needed to reach this therapeutic range. Previous publications demonstrated a lack of standardization in heparin management for Impella devices.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 different heparin protocols for long-term Impella support.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included adult patients on Impella support for greater than 24 hours. The primary end point was time to therapeutic range measured in hours, from time of implantation to the first of 2 consecutive measurements within the therapeutic range. Secondary end points included percentage of time in therapeutic range, rates of major bleeding, pump thrombosis, hemolysis, and nursing satisfaction.

RESULTS

There were 19 patients identified, with 7 using the original protocol and 12 using the revised protocol. Time to therapeutic range was similar between protocols (15.5 vs 12 hours, P = NS). Another 14 patients were managed with patient-specific protocols as a result of bleeding or physician preference. In total, 42% of all patients in this study experienced major bleeding. There were no confirmed thrombosis events. This study was limited by a small sample size.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Despite using different heparin protocols, outcomes and bleeding events were similar between groups. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal degree of anticoagulation necessary to reduce bleeding risk.

Trials of mechanical circulatory support with percutaneous axial flow pumps in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Mission impossible?

Cardiogenic shock is a complex clinical entity associated with very high mortality and intensive resource utilization. Despite the widespread use of timely reperfusion and appropriate pharmacotherapy, the survival rate remains at around 50%. Recently, percutaneous axial flow pumps have been integrated into the therapeutic spectrum of cardiogenic shock management. However, most of the literature supporting their use stems from observational studies. To date, attempts to perform randomized controlled trials with percutaneous axial flow pumps have failed. This underlines the challenge of performing a well-conducted randomized controlled trial that provides the highest level of evidence. Such a trial is warranted, because percutaneous axial flow pumps are costly, and are associated with serious complications. The major pitfalls of previous studies were lack of standardized cardiogenic shock definitions according to clinical severity, inappropriate patient and device selection, lack of standardized trial endpoints and high rates of crossovers; these issues must be carefully considered and evaluated. In light of recent trial failures, we aim to summarize the challenges associated with performing randomized controlled trials of percutaneous axial flow pumps in patients experiencing acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, and to suggest potential means of overcoming them.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a challenging syndrome, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although pharmacological therapies are successful and can successfully control this acute cardiac illness, some patients remain refractory to drugs. Therefore, a more aggressive treatment strategy is needed. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) can be used to stabilise patients with decompensated heart failure. In the last two decades, the increased use of TCS has led to several kinds of devices becoming available. However, indications for TCS and device selection are part of a complex process. It is necessary to evaluate the severity of CS, any early and prompt haemodynamic resuscitation, prior TCS, specific patient risk factors, technical limitations and adequacy of resources and training, as well as an assessment of whether care would be futile. This article examines options for commonly used TCS devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps, a pulsatile percutaneous ventricular assist device (the iVAC), veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (Abiomed) and TandemHeart (LivaNova) percutaneous ventricular assist device.

Circulatory Support with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and/or Impella for Cardiogenic Shock During Myocardial Infarction

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) is recommended for patients with profound cardiogenic shock (CS). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Impella are possible TCS devices, but the device choice and the implantation timing are not definitely established, specifically during acute myocardial infarction. We have analyzed the respective use of ECMO or Impella (2.5, CP, or 5.0) for CS following acute myocardial infarction, from a cohort of patients who underwent TCS within 72 hours after admission for emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2009 to April 2015. Among 88 TCS-treated patients, 42 had early TCS: 23 ECMO and 19 Impella. Cardiac management, including PCI, was similar between the two groups, but ECMO patients were sicker than Impella patients (higher blood lactate level at ICU admission, higher vasoactive-inotroic and ENCOURAGE scores before TCS implantation, p ≤ 0.02). Three patients (7%) have had TCS implantation before admission, but TCS was implanted mostly in cathlab (43%, 1 during PCI, 13 just after PCI) or soon after ICU admission (50%, n = 21). Modification of the initial TCS choice was required in 10 cases (24%) for assistance upgrading in case of Impella (n = 4) or for left ventricle unloading in case of ECMO (n = 6). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is the technique of choice in case of profound CS, whereas Impella devices seem more appropriate for less severe hemodynamic compromise. Interestingly, the combination of both techniques may help to overcome the limits inherent to each device.

Mechanical circulatory devices in acute heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Temporary circulatory support (TCS) with short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices is increasingly used as a salvage therapy for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. This article provides an overview of current devices, their indications and management, and discusses results of recent case series and trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Percutaneous active MCS devices (Impella, TandemHeart…) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) are utilized as a bridge to 'decision' that includes weaning after cardiac function recovery, transplantation, long-term MCS and withdrawal in case of futility. VA-ECMO is considered the first-line TCS since it allows rapid improvement in oxygenation, is less expensive, and is also suitable for patients with biventricular failure. Combining Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump support with ECMO might decrease left ventricular pressure and improve outcomes. Sepsis-associated cardiomyopathy, massive pulmonary embolism, arrhythmic storm and Takotsubo-like cardiomyopathy are among emerging indications for TCS.

SUMMARY

TCS have become the cornerstone of the management of patients with cardiogenic shock, although the evidence supporting their efficacy is limited. VA-ECMO is considered the first-line option, with a growing number of accepted and emerging indications. Randomized clinical trials are now needed to determine the respective place of different MCS devices in cardiogenic shock treatment strategies.

Use of an argatroban-based purge solution in a percutaneous ventricular assist device

PURPOSE

The use of an argatroban-based percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) purge solution in a patient with suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is described.

SUMMARY

A 70-year-old woman in cardiogenic shock was admitted to a coronary care unit after being discovered unresponsive at home. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed a low ejection fraction and findings consistent with takotsubo cardiomyopathy. Administration of multiple inotropes and vasopressors was initially required for hemodynamic support. The patient was implanted with an Impella pVAD (Abiomed, Inc., Danvers, MA) using a heparin-based purge solution; an i.v. heparin infusion was initiated for supplemental systemic anticoagulation. Over the next 24 hours, the patient's platelet count decreased from 168,000 to 37,000 cells/μL. Given a differential diagnosis that included HIT, the patient was transitioned to an argatroban-based purge solution. Due to prolonged activated partial thromboplastin times, a systemic argatroban infusion was not initiated, and the patient remained fully anticoagulated throughout pVAD support with only the argatroban-based purge solution. An HIT antibody test was negative. On hospitalization day 9 (day 6 of pVAD support with argatroban use), the patient became hemodynamically stable and was weaned off pVAD support. Three days later, the platelet count had recovered to 117,000 cells/μL (from a nadir of 21,000 cells/μL). During pVAD support, the patient developed hemolytic anemia with minimal bleeding complications.

CONCLUSION

Argatroban was used as a purge solution anticoagulant in a patient with an Impella pVAD and found to be a safe and effective alternative to heparin.

Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: What's New?

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion primarily due to cardiac dysfunction. This condition is the most common cause of death in patients affected by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite early revascularization, prompt optimal medical therapy, and up-to-date mechanical circulatory supports, mortality of patients with CS remains high.The objective of this review is to summarize epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment options of CS in light of the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. The latest European guidelines on myocardial revascularization have reviewed the previous guidelines with respect to early multivessel revascularization and routine use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with AMI-related CS.Most of the current evidences come partly from randomized trials, but mostly from observational registries because of the difficulty to test different treatments in this life-threatening clinical setting.Some of the latest studies highlight the potential crucial benefit of newly introduced mechanical circulatory support devices, although evidences are not sufficient to definitely assess the benefit/risk ratio of the different systems.Many questions remain unanswered in this field, and further trials are advocated to better elucidate the best medical, reperfusion, and circulatory support approaches aimed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with CS after AMI.

Assistance ventriculaire gauche par Impella® : indications, gestion et complications

L’assistance monoventriculaire Impella® est une assistance microaxiale non pulsatile dépourvue de fonction d’oxygénation et/ou de décarboxylation. Sur le principe de la vis sans fin d’Archimède, elle aspire le sang dans le ventricule gauche pour le réinjecter dans la racine de l’aorte en regard des ostia coronaires. Selon le modèle utilisé, le débit d’assistance antérograde ainsi généré varie de 2,5 à 5 l/min. De par son mode de fonctionnement, l’assistance Impella® permet une décharge ventriculaire efficace. Ses indications sont l’angioplastie coronaire à haut risque et le choc cardiogénique réfractaire aux agents cardiovasoactifs. Chez le patient assisté par une extracorporeal life support (ECLS), la pompe Impella® permet de limiter le risque de surcharge ventriculaire. Chez le patient exclusivement assisté par Impella® soit d’emblée ou après une association avec l’ECLS, la voie d’abord axillaire permet sa réhabilitation active y compris la déambulation et l’activité physique. Elle se révèle alors une mise à l’épreuve cliniquement pertinente du ventricule droit en vue d’une assistance de longue durée de type left ventricular assist device.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs . intra‐aortic balloon pump in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiovascular intervention: A meta‐analysis

Objective

Although controversial, the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) are widely used for initial hemodynamic stabilization. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of these two devices in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model.

Results

The quantitative analysis included 4 RCTs and 2 observational studies. A total of 348 patients received PLVAD and 340 received IABP. Meta-analysis revealed that early mortality rates (in-hospital or 30-day) did not differ between the PLVAD and IABP groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.70–1.51, P = 0.89). Significant differences were observed between the two groups in the composite, in-hospital, non-major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.01–1.68, P = 0.04).

Conclusions

Compared with IABP, PLVAD with active circulatory support did not improve early survival in those with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing either PCI or VT ablation, but increased the in-hospital non-MACCE rate.

Acute Coronary Syndrome With Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Culprit - An Observation From the AOI-LMCA Registry

BACKGROUND

Data on the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the clinical outcome of patients with ACS who underwent PCI for LMCA culprit lesion.Methods and Results:Of 1,809 patients enrolled in the Assessing Optimal Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for the LMCA (AOI-LMCA) registry (a retrospective 6-center registry of consecutive patients undergoing LMCA stenting in Japan), the current study population consisited of 1,500 patients with unprotected LMCA stenting for LMCA ACS (ACS with shock: 115 patients, ACS without shock: 281 patients) and stable CAD (1,104 patients). The cumulative 180-day incidence of death was markedly higher in the ACS with shock group than in the other groups (49.5%, 8.6%, and 3.3%, respectively; P<0.0001), but mortality beyond 180-day was not significantly different among the 3 groups (30.2%, 20.4%, and 19.5%, respectively; P=0.65). In the ACS with shock group, the initial TIMI flow grade did not affect 5-year mortality (57.1% and 62.2%, P=0.99), but in the ACS without shock group, 5-year mortality was significantly higher in patients with initial TIMI flow grade ≤1 than in patients with TIMI flow grade ≥2 (44.4% and 23.7%, respectively; P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LMCA ACS, survival correlates with baseline hemodynamic and coronary flow status.

Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience

AIMS

Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients remains high. Short-term mechanical circulatory support with Impella can be used to support the circulation in these patients, but data from randomised controlled studies and 'real-world' data are sparse. The aim is to describe real-life data on outcomes and complications of our 12 years of clinical experience with Impella in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction and to identify predictors of 6-month mortality.

METHODS

We describe a single-centre registry from October 2004 to December 2016 including all patients treated with Impella for cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. We report outcomes and complications and identify predictors of 6-month mortality.

RESULTS

Our overall clinical experience consists of 250 patients treated with Impella 2.5, Impella CP or Impella 5.0. A total of 172 patients received Impella therapy for cardiogenic shock, of which 112 patients had cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The mean age was 60.1±10.6 years, mean arterial pressure was 67 (56-77) mmHg, lactate was 6.2 (3.6-9.7) mmol/L, 87.5% were mechanically ventilated and 59.6% had a cardiac arrest before Impella placement. Overall 30-day mortality was 56.2% and 6-month mortality was 60.7%. Complications consisted of device-related vascular complications (17.0%), non-device-related bleeding (12.5%), haemolysis (7.1%) and stroke (3.6%). In a multivariate analysis, pH before Impella placement is a predictor of 6-month mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our registry shows that Impella treatment in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction is feasible, although mortality rates remain high and complications occur.

Right Axillary Artery Conduit Is a Safe and Reliable Access for Implantation of Impella 5.0 Microaxial Pump

BACKGROUND

Impella 5.0 is a powerful mechanical circulatory support device placed into the left ventricle of patients in cardiogenic shock not responding to pharmacologic support alone. This therapy can support patient hemodynamics from weeks to several months, and patients can potentially ambulate with the device implanted while awaiting destination therapy.

METHODS

From July 2012 to September 2017, 22 Impella 5.0 devices (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA) were implanted via right axillary artery at our center. All devices were implanted under fluoroscopic and transesophageal echocardiographic guidance.

RESULTS

Eighty-one percent of patients were male, and average age was 61 years (range 27-73). A 10- or 12-mm graft was used in 96% of the cases, most commonly Hemashield (Maquet, Rastatt, Germany; 46%) or Dacron (DuPont, Wilmington, DE; 23%). The graft was tunneled laterally in a subcutaneous plane in 91% of the cases. All attempts at right axillary artery conduit creation and device implantation were successful. The angle of end-to-side anastomosis was 45-60°. The average duration of therapy was 8.8 days (range 1-19). There were no brachial plexus injuries, patients with upper extremity ischemia, or bleeding requiring intervention in the postoperative period. One patient was coagulopathic and developed a hemorrhagic stroke. Concurrent use of mechanical circulatory support for the right heart was present in 27% of the cases. Twenty-seven percent of patients bridged successfully to ventricular assist devices, 18% recovered to have the device explanted, and 55% of patients died within 30 days of device implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Right axillary artery conduit is a safe and reliable access for implantation of Impella 5.0. This technique appears to be associated with low complication rates when implanted with a standardized technique.

Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump During High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Cardiogenic Shock

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) are commonly used in different clinical scenarios. The goal of this study was to carry out a meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) comparing the IABP versus pVAD (TandemHeart and the Impella) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or cardiogenic shock (CS). Using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE we searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies that compared pVAD versus IABP in patients who underwent high-risk PCI or with CS. We included 5 RCTs and 1 nonrandomized study comparing pVAD versus IABP. Based on the RCTs, we demonstrated no difference in short-term (6 months) (risk ratio [RR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.52; p = 0.59) or long-term (12 months) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.76; p = 1.00) all-cause mortality. The use of pVAD seemed associated with more adverse events (acute kidney injury, limb ischemia, infection, major bleeding, and vascular injury) compared with IABP (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.39; p = 0.008) but this was not supported by TSA (random-effects RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.09; p = 0.11; TSA-adjusted CI 0.13 to 21.3). In conclusion there were no differences in short or long-term mortality when using IABP versus pVAD for high-risk PCI or CS. IABP showed superiority over pVAD in terms of risk of harm. However, further RCTs are needed to establish more conclusively the role of these modalities of mechanical circulatory support during high-risk PCI or CS.

Management of advanced heart failure: a review

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) has become a global pandemic. Despite recent developments in both medical and device treatments, HF incidences continues to increase. The current definition of HF restricts itself to stages at which clinical symptoms are apparent. In advanced heart failure (AdHF), it is universally accepted that all patients are refractory to traditional therapies. As the number of HF patients increase, so does the need for additional treatments, with an increased proportion of patients requiring advanced therapies. Areas covered: This review discusses extensive evidence for the effect of medical treatment on HF, although the data on the effect on AdHF is scare. Authors review the relevant literature for treating AdHF patients. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory devices (MCD) have emerged as an alternative to heart transplantation and have been shown to enhance quality of life and reduce mortality therefore authors also review the current literature on the different MCD and technologies. Expert commentary: More patients will need advanced therapies, as the access to heart transplantation is limited by the number of available donors. AdHF patients should be identified timely since the window of opportunities for advanced therapy is narrow as their morbidity is progressive and survival is often short.

Place de l’assistance circulatoire dans le choc cardiogénique en France en 2018 : revue de la littérature et perspectives

Le choc cardiogénique reste de nos jours une entité mal définie, assez fréquente en pratique clinique (60 000–70 000 cas/an en Europe), dont le pronostic est sombre, avec une mortalité souvent supérieure à 40 % à 30 jours. À travers cette revue de la littérature, nous essaierons de définir cette entité et ses étiologies, avant de parler de son incidence et de son pronostic. L’approche physiopathologique du choc cardiogénique nous permettra par la suite d’approcher sa prise en charge thérapeutique classique (gestion de la volémie, amines inotropes et vasoconstrictives, ventilation) et les limites de cette dernière. Ainsi, nous aborderons les assistances circulatoires et cardiocirculatoires disponibles en France, afin de les envisager au sein d’une stratégie globale de prise en charge du patient en choc cardiogénique. Nous discuterons plus spécifiquement leurs indications ainsi que l’importance du moment d’implantation afin d’optimiser leur efficacité. Enfin, nous évoquerons les assistances actuellement en développement, mais également les nouvelles stratégies thérapeutiques qui pourraient arriver dans les prochaines années.

'Combat' Approach to Cardiogenic Shock

The incidence of cardiogenic shock is rising, patient complexity is increasing and patient survival has plateaued. Mirroring organisational innovations of elite military units, our multidisciplinary medical specialists at the INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute aim to combine the adaptability, agility and cohesion of small teams across our large healthcare system. We advocate for widespread adoption of our 'combat' methodology focused on: increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary shock team activation, group decision-making, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support (as appropriate), haemodynamic-guided management, strict protocol adherence, complete data capture and regular after action reviews, with a goal of ending preventable death from cardiogenic shock.

Advanced Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart.

STUDY SELECTION

Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

Interventional therapies in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock remains the most common cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Early revascularization of the infarct-related artery has been shown to reduce mortality and is the therapeutic cornerstone. The optimal revascularization strategy of additional non-culprit lesions remains yet to be determined. Further, uncertainties exist with respect to access site choice, antiplatelet regimen as well as mechanical support devices. This review outlines current evidence on the interventional management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have examined the effectiveness and safety of the Impella device, a percutaneous left ventricular assist device, in the setting of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, data are sparse and results are conflicting. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Impella device in high-risk patients undergoing PCI via a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs and observational studies that evaluated the Impella device in high-risk patients undergoing PCI. Inclusion was restricted to studies in which ≥10 patients received the Impella device; both uncontrolled and controlled (versus intra-aortic-balloon pump [IABP]) studies were included.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies (4 RCTs, 2 controlled observational studies, and 14 uncontrolled observational studies; 1,287 patients) were included, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 42 months. The use of Impella resulted in improved procedural and hemodynamic characteristics in controlled and uncontrolled studies. In controlled studies, the 30-day rates of all-cause mortality and MACE were similar across groups. In most uncontrolled studies, the 30-day rates of all-cause mortality were generally low (range: 3.7%-10%), though rates of MACE were slightly higher (range: 5%-20%).

CONCLUSION

The Impella device was found to improve procedural and hemodynamic parameters, but only limited randomized data are available regarding clinical outcomes associated with its use. Large, multicenter RCTs are needed to definitively establish the effectiveness of the Impella device among high-risk PCI patients.

Hemodynamic Benefits of Counterpulsation, Implantable, Percutaneous, and Intraaortic Rotary Blood Pumps: An In-Silico and In Vitro Study

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have become a standard therapy for heart failure (HF) patients. MCS device designs may differ by level of support, inflow and/or outflow cannulation sites, and mechanism(s) of cardiac unloading and blood flow delivery. Investigation and direct comparison of hemodynamic parameters that help characterize performance of MCS devices has been limited. We quantified cardiac and vascular hemodynamic responses for different types of MCS devices. Continuous flow (CF) left ventricular (LV) assist devices (LVAD) with LV or left atrial (LA) inlet, counterpulsation devices, percutaneous CF LVAD, and intra-aortic rotary blood pumps (IARBP) were quantified using established computer simulation and mock flow loop models. Hemodynamic data were analyzed on a beat-to-beat basis at baseline HF and over a range of MCS support. Results demonstrated that all LVAD greatly diminished vascular pulsatility (P) and LV external work (LVEW). LVAD with LA inflow provided a greater reduction in LVEW compared to LVAD with LV inflow, but at the potential risk for blood stasis/thrombosis in the LV at high support. Counterpulsation provided greater coronary flow (CoF) augmentation, but had a lower reduction in LVEW compared to partial percutaneous LVAD support. IARBP diminished LVEW, but at the expense of diminished CoF due to coronary steal. The hemodynamic benefits for each type of mechanical circulatory support system are unique and clinical decisions on device selection to maximize end organ perfusion and minimize invasiveness needs to be considered for an individual patients' presentation.

[Cardiac support and replacement systems]

In recent years, the widespread use of partial mechanical cardiac support and even temporary complete replacement of cardiac function has been established in many intensive care units in the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock. There is a difference between partial left-ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and the possibility of complete heart (and lung) replacement by extra corporeal life support (ECLS). Despite the use of mechanical support devices, the mortality of cardiogenic shock remains high. The consideration of using percutaneous LVAD and ECLS in cardiogenic shock should be considered in refractory cardiogenic shock patients in addition to support by catecholamines and after early revascularization in acute coronary syndromes. However, there are no large randomized studies evaluating mechanical support systems with respect to outcome in cardiogenic shock patients. German and international guidelines do not recommend the routine use of mechanical support as a first-line treatment in cardiogenic shock patients and emphasize that their application should be restricted to patients with therapy refractory shock. In other cases of noninfarct-related cardiogenic shock (e. g., poisoning, myocarditis), ECLS use should be considered as bridging therapy. ECLS may also be considered in cardiopulmonary resuscitation which is termed E‑CPR. According to registry data, E‑CPR may reduce mortality in selected patients. A possible application of ECLS is severe accidental hypothermia with cardiac arrest despite limited data. In these rare cases, early ECLS should be considered for rewarming and stabilization.

The ICM research agenda on extracorporeal life support

PURPOSE

This study aimed to concisely describe the current standards of care, major recent advances, common beliefs that have been contradicted by recent trials, areas of uncertainty, and clinical studies that need to be performed over the next decade and their expected outcomes with regard to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

METHODS

Narrative review based on a systematic analysis of the medical literature, national and international guidelines, and expert opinion.

RESULTS

The use of venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) is increasing in the most severe forms of acute lung injury. In patients with cardiogenic shock, short-term veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) provides both pulmonary and circulatory support. Technological improvements and recently published studies suggest that ECMO is able to improve patients' outcomes. There are, however, many uncertainties regarding the real benefits of this technique both in hemodynamic and respiratory failure, the territorial organization to deliver ECMO, the indications and the use of concomitant treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there have been considerable advances regarding the use of ECMO in critically ill patients, the risk/benefit ratio remains underinvestigated. ECMO indications, organization of ECMO delivery, and use of adjuvant therapeutics need also to be explored. Ongoing and future studies may be able to resolve these issues.

Mechanical circulatory support for end-stage heart failure

Mechanical circulatory assistance has become a frequent therapeutic option for patients with advanced heart failure. For patients with acute cardiogenic shock and impaired organ function, short-term assistance with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is the leading therapeutic option. It enables a "bridge to decision-making" i.e. withdrawal of the device after myocardial recovery or after recognition of therapeutic futility, or as a bridge-to-transplantation or to long-term mechanical support. For Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) class 2-6 patients, implantation of a long-term ventricular assist-device (VAD) should be considered before progression to multiple organ failure if heart transplantation is not a first-line option. Most patients receive a miniaturized axial or centrifugal fully implantable left VAD as a bridge-to-transplantation or as "destination therapy" in this setting.

Moving Beyond SHOCK: New Paradigms in the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

The current management of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is associated with a high rate of mortality, despite widespread regional implementation of rapid transfer to percutaneous coronary intervention-capable centres for prompt infarct-related artery reperfusion. The limited clinical effectiveness of early revascularization in patients with AMI-CS might be secondary to the extent of coronary artery disease in these patients and the risk of incomplete revascularization, as well as the lower probability of achieving successful reperfusion compared with acute myocardial infarction without hemodynamic instability. Also, the severity of end-organ injury is a critical determinant of outcome. We review adjunctive therapies to early revascularization in AMI-CS, specifically with a focus on the role of short-term mechanical circulatory support. In selected patients with AMI-CS, there might be a benefit associated with early institution of mechanical circulatory support before revascularization.

Contemporary Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Recent advances have caused a major shift in the way ST-elevation myocardial infarctions are managed. This review explores the pharmacological and interventional techniques that have evidence for improving outcomes and the landmark trials that have sparked change. The new P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, ticagrelor and prasugrel, have been shown to be superior to clopidogrel in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Concurrently, many technical aspects of percutaneous coronary intervention have been further clarified by trial data, with bare-metal stents, routine thrombus aspiration and femoral access showing evidence of inferiority. Ongoing trials will provide more information on the role of non-culprit lesion PCI, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds, mechanical devices in persistent ischaemia and early automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for inducible ventricular tachycardia.