Use of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Before Durable Device Implantation in Patients With Cardiac Cachexia: Case Series

A profile of the impella 5.5 for the clinical management of cardiogenic shock and a review of the current indications for use and future directions

INTRODUCTION

The Impella 5.5 device is a surgically inserted, trans-valvular, microaxial flow device capable of providing 5.5 L/min of continuous, antegrade flow from the left ventricle (LV) to the aorta. The ability of the Impella 5.5 to fully pressure and volume unload the dysfunctional LV while allowing for mobilization and rehabilitation has rapidly expanded its use. Clinical use scenarios include escalation of support for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS), transition from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to mobile support, bridge to transplantation or durable MCS in acute decompensated heart failure, or perioperative use in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS).

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a profile of the Impella 5.5 device, summarizes the current literature surrounding clinical applications, reviews active and upcoming clinical trials, and projects future applications for the device through an expert review.

EXPERT OPINION

The development of the Impella 5.5 has allowed for monitoring of left-heart recovery, optimizing right ventricular function, and rehabilitating patients to meet bridging endpoints. The 2018 heart transplant allocation system modifications have expanded the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) on the transplant waitlist, increasing the number of patients transplanted on support. With increased safety and durability, an expanding frontier is used in perioperative support for PCCS in high-risk cardiac surgery.

Prognostic Impact and Prevalence of Cachexia in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cachexia, defined as the combination of weight loss, weakness, fatigue, anorexia and abnormal biochemical markers based on Evans' criteria, is known to exacerbate the prognosis of heart failure (HF) patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the prognostic impact and prevalence of cachexia, as defined by Evans' criteria, in patients with HF.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception until December 2023, including HF patients for whom the Evans' criteria were applied to explore the prevalence and prognostic impact of cachexia. This study employed a meta-analyses using the random-effects model and inverse-variance method that was adhered to the revised 2020 PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (CRD42023446443).

RESULTS

Six prospective or retrospective studies of 2252 patients with HF were included, whereby all-cause mortality was significantly greater in patients with cachexia with low heterogeneity among studies (HR: 1.60, 95% CI 1.31-1.95, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). For the studies that used full, uniformly defined Evans' criteria, among 1844 patients, mortality remained greater in patients with cachexia (HR: 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.97, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). In a subgroup analysis among 1714 of HF with reduced ejection fraction, the results were consistent (HR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.28-1.92, p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Additionally, 10 studies comprising 2862 patients indicated a 31% risk of cachexia in HF (95% CI 21-43%, I2 = 94%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cachexia is an independent predictor for increased all-cause mortality among patients with HF with a notable prevalence of 31%. Interventions aiding in improving fatigue, anorexia and exercise capacity could help improve the quality of life of this clinical population.

Prehabilitation Maximizing Functional Mobility in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Supported on Axillary Impella

Physical therapy (PT) benefits for critically ill patients are well recognized; however, little data exist on PT in patients receiving temporary mechanical circulatory support. In this single-center retrospective study (February 2017-January 2022), we analyzed 37 patients who received an axillary Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) and PT to "prehabilitate" them before durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) implantation. The Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) Basic Mobility tool assessed the functional status at different points during admission. Immediately after Impella placement, the median AM-PAC score was 12.7 (interquartile range [IQR], 9-15), and the scores continued to significantly increase to 18.4 (IQR, 16-23) before dLVAD and up to 20.7 (IQR, 19-24) at discharge, indicating improved independence. No PT-related complications were reported. Thus, we hypothesize that critically ill patients initially deemed equivocal candidates may safely participate in PT while maximizing functional activities before dLVAD placement.

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.