Impella versus IABP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with the lowest whereas Impella with the highest inpatient mortality and complications regardless of severity or hospital types

Impella and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, the effect on mortality remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of Impella and IABP on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock the large Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was utilized to study any association between the use of IABP or Impella on outcome. ICD-10 codes for Impella, IABP, and cardiogenic shock for available years 2016-2020 were utilized. A total of 844,020 patients had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. A total of 101,870 patients were treated with IABP and 39645 with an Impella. Total inpatient mortality without any device was 34.2% vs only 25.1% with IABP use (OR = 0.65, CI 0.62-0.67) but was highest at 40.7% with Impella utilization (OR = 1.32, CI 1.26-1.39). After adjusting for 47 variables, Impella utilization remained associated with the highest mortality (OR: 1.33, CI 1.25-1.41, p < 0.001), whereas IABP remained associated with the lowest mortality (OR: 0.69, CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.001). Separating rural vs teaching hospitals revealed similar findings. In patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of Impella was associated with the highest whereas IABP was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality regardless of comorbid condition.

Heparin dosing in patients with Impella-supported cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Impella™ is increasingly used in cardiogenic shock. However, thromboembolic and bleeding events are frequent during percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS).

OBJECTIVE

Therefore, we aimed to explore the optimal anticoagulation regime for pMCS to prevent thromboembolism and bleedings.

METHODS

This hypothesis-generating multi-center cohort study investigated 170 patients with left-Impella™ support. We (A) compared bleeding/thrombotic events in two centers with therapeutic range (TR-aPTT) activated partial thromboplastin time (60-80s) and (B) compared events of these centers with one center with intermediate range aPTT (40-60s).

RESULTS

After matching, there were no differences in patients' characteristics. In centers aiming at TR-aPTT, major bleeding was numerically lower with aPTT <60s within 48 h of left-Impella™ support, versus patients that achieved the aimed aPTT of ≥60s [aPTT ≥60s: 22 (37.3%) vs. aPTT<60s 14 (23.7%); Hazard ratio [HR], 0.62 (95%) CI, 0.28-1.38; p = 0.234]. Major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events (MACCE) did not differ between groups. In comparison of centers, TR-aPTT strategy showed higher major bleeding rates [TR: 8 (47.1%) vs. intermediate range: 1 (5.9%); HR, 0.06 (95%) CI, 0.01-0.45; p = 0.006]. MACCE were lower in the intermediate range aPTT group as well [TR 12 (70.6%) vs. intermediate range 5 (29.4%) HR, 0.32 (95%) CI, 0.11-0.92; p = 0.034].

CONCLUSION

This pilot analysis showed that lowering UFH-targets in left-Impella™ supported CS patients seems to be a safe and promising strategy for reducing major bleedings without increasing MACCE. This needs to be validated in larger, randomized clinical trials.

The Effect of Mechanical Circulatory Support on Blood Flow in the Ascending Aorta: A Combined Experimental and Computational Study

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are designed for short-term treatment in cases of acute decompensated heart failure as a bridge to transplant or recovery. Some of the known complications of MCS treatments are related to their hemodynamics in the aorta. The current study investigates the effect of MCS on the aortic flow. The study uses combined experimental and numerical methods to delineate complex flow structures. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) is used to capture the vortical and turbulent flow characteristics in a glass model of the human aorta. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses are used to complete the 3D flow in the aorta. Three specific MCS configurations are examined: a suction pump with a counterclockwise (CCW) rotating impeller, a suction pump with a clockwise (CW) rotating impeller, and a discharge pump with a straight jet. These models were examined under varying flow rates (1-2.5 L/min). The results show that the pump configuration strongly influences the flow in the thoracic aorta. The rotating impeller of the suction pump induces a dominant swirling flow in the aorta. The swirling flow distributes the incoming jet and reduces the turbulent intensity near the aortic valve and in the aorta. In addition, at high flow rates, the local vortices formed near the pump are washed downstream toward the aortic arch. Specifically, an MCS device with a CCW rotating impeller induces a non-physiological CCW helical flow in the descending aorta (which is opposite to the natural helical flow), while CW swirl combines better with the natural helical flow.

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

PURPOSE

Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases through 27 August 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSMs). We conducted frequentist network meta-analysis, investigating mortality (either 30 days or in-hospital) as the primary outcome. We assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool/Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and as sensitivity analysis reconstructed survival data from published survival curves for a one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using a stratified Cox model.

RESULTS

We included 38 studies (48,749 patients), mostly reporting on patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stages C-E cardiogenic shock. Compared with no MCS, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump (ECMO-IABP; network odds ratio [OR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86, moderate certainty) was associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in mortality between ECMO, IABP, microaxial ventricular assist device (mVAD), ECMO-mVAD, centrifugal VAD, or mVAD-IABP and no MCS (all very low certainty). Our one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis based on the stratified Cox model found only ECMO-IABP was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, HR, 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66).

CONCLUSION

In patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality. However, this must be interpreted within the context of inter-study heterogeneity and limited certainty of evidence.

An in silico analysis of unsteady flow structures in a microaxial blood pump under a pulsating rotation speed

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are generally designed to perform continuous flow. However, it has been proven that continuous flow, which is not a physiological hemodynamic state, may cause severe complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding, pulmonary hypertension, and ventricular suction. For these reasons, many pulsating blood pump control strategies have been proposed and have the potential for application in percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) or microaxial blood pumps. A few cases report extra hemolysis when introducing pulsating speed, while none involve blood pumps. This research's primary purpose is to evaluate the potential hemolysis of pVAD under pulsating flow conditions.

METHODS

First, the pulsating flow state is deduced using a heart failure model and varying speed. The heart model is established according to the pathology state collected from a clinical check. The rotation speed and boundary physical state are set to fit the heart failure model. The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method with the hemolysis prediction model is performed. Furthermore, we used proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) analysis to reconstruct the flow field and obtain more details about shearing and transporting effects.

RESULTS

(1) As a variable rotational speed was introduced, no significant gain in hemolysis accumulation appeared in pVAD. This is quite different from long-term implantable VADs. (2) Pulsation affects hemolysis mainly through pressure (or normal stress). Variable rotational speed affects hemolysis mainly through flow instability. (3) Variable rotational speed will increase the instability and influence hemolysis by transporting and shearing effects, while the transporting effect is more significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The unsteady flow state will affect the spatial distribution of hemolysis, which should be taken into account during control strategy and impeller shape design.

Intra-aortic balloon pump versus percutaneous Impella© in emergency revascularisation for myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Mortality rates in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) remain persistently high despite advances over the past decade in percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. This systematic review aims to analyse the existing literature to compare mortality outcomes in patients mechanically supported by intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous Impella 2.5/CP© for AMI-CS undergoing emergency revascularisation.

METHODS

The following MeSH terms were applied to the databases Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science: 'Intra-aortic balloon pump', 'Impella', 'Cardiogenic shock', 'Myocardial Infarction' and 'Mortality'. This yielded 2643 studies. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the studies were initially screened by title and abstract before full text analysis.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria: two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies. Data from a total of 21,006 patients were included across the studies. Notably, one study claimed reduced mortality with IABP versus control, and one study concluded that Impella© improved survival rates over the IABP. The average 30-day all-cause mortality in patients supported by IABP was 38.1%, 54.3% in Impella© groups and 39.4% in control groups.

CONCLUSION

AMI-CS presents an important cohort of patients in whom conducting RCTs is difficult. As a result, the literature is limited. Analysis of the available literature suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support superior survival in those supported by IABP or Impella© when compared to control despite suggestions that the Impella© offers superior haemodynamic support. Limitations of the studies have been discussed to outline suggestions for future research.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support with and without intra-aortic balloon in cardiogenic shock patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical characteristics and in-hospital bleeding complications and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) associated with the use of Impella alone or the combination of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with Impella in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

All CS patients who underwent PCI and were treated with an Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device were identified. Patients were divided into two groups: having MCS support with Impella alone or with both, IABP and Impella simultaneously (dual MCS group). Bleeding complications were classified by a modified Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification. Major bleeding was defined as BARC≥3 bleeding. MACCE was the composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events and major bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2018 a total of 101 patients were treated at six tertiary care New York hospitals with either Impella (n = 61) or dual MCS with Impella and IABP (n = 40). Clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. Dual MCS patients presented more often with a STEMI (77.5 % vs. 45.9 %, p = 0.002) and had left main coronary artery intervention (20.3 % vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.03). Major bleeding complications (69.4 % vs. 74.1 %, p = 0.62) and MACCE rates (80.6 % vs. 79.3 %, p = 0.88) were very high but similar in both groups, however access site bleeding complications were lower in patients treated with dual MCS. In-hospital mortality was 29.5 % for the Impella group and 25.0 % for the dual MCS group (p = 062). Access site bleeding complications were lower in in patients treated with dual MCS (5.0 % vs. 24.6 %, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In CS patients undergoing PCI with either the Impella device alone or with Impella and IABP, major bleeding complications and MACCE rates were high but not significantly different between the two groups. In hospital mortality was relatively low in both MCS groups despite the high-risk characteristics of these patients. Future studies should assess the risks and benefits of the simultaneous use of these two MCS in CS patients undergoing PCI.

[Place du ballon de contre pulsion intra aortique dans l'infarctus aigu du myocarde compliqué par état de choc cardiogénique]

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

Cardiogenic shock remains one of the leading causes of death in patients with myocardial infarction. The Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been widely used as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), despite recommendations against its routine use. In this paper, our aim is to analyze and share our own experience with IABP in the setting of AMI. We retrospectively reviewed the files of patients admitted with AMI and cardiogenic shock and for whom IABP was inserted between June 2016 and December 2022.

RESULTS

300 patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock were admitted and benefited from IABP insertion and primary coronary revascularization. The overall mortality rate was 62.3%, the site related complication rate was 0.6%, and the overall complications rate (including site related and major bleeding) was 10.6%. There was a significantly higher mortality in the group of patients where the Left Anterior Descending artery (LAD) was the culprit lesion, in the group of patients who required dialysis, the group who had creatinine levels greater than 200 um/L compared to the group who had creatinine lower than 200 um/L, and in patients older than 70 years. Interestingly, no difference in mortality was observed between men and women, single versus multiple vessel disease, and between STEMI and non-STEMI patients.

CONCLUSION

Mortality of AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and treated by IABP remains high. However, IABP usage is associated with a low complication rate. Better selection criteria for IABP usage versus other more powerful mechanical circulatory support devices in such patients might improve the outcome for the patient.

The Use of Cardioprotective Devices and Strategies in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Procedures and Cardiac Surgery

In the United States, about one million people are seen to visit the operating theater for cardiac surgery annually. However, nearly half of these visits result in complications such as renal, neurological, and cardiac injury of varying degrees. Historically, many mechanisms and approaches have been explored in attempts to reduce injuries associated with cardiac surgery and percutaneous procedures. Devices such as cardioplegia, mechanical circulatory support, and other methods have shown promising results in managing and preventing life-threatening cardiac-surgery-related outcomes such as heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Comparably, cardioprotective devices such as TandemHeart, Impella family devices, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) have also been proven to show significant cardioprotection through mechanical support. However, their use as interventional agents in the prevention of hemodynamic changes due to cardiac surgery or percutaneous interventions has been correlated with adverse effects. This can lead to a rebound increased risk of mortality in high-risk patients who undergo cardiac surgery. Further research is necessary to delineate and stratify patients into appropriate cardioprotective device groups. Furthermore, the use of one device over another in terms of efficacy remains controversial and further research is necessary to assess device potential in different settings. Clinical research is also needed regarding novel strategies and targets, such as transcutaneous vagus stimulation and supersaturated oxygen therapy, aimed at reducing mortality among high-risk cardiac surgery patients. This review explores the recent advances regarding the use of cardioprotective devices in patients undergoing percutaneous procedures and cardiac surgery.

Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses

Impella and VA-ECMO are two possible therapeutic courses for the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aims to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analyses of a comprehensive set of clinical and socio-economic outcomes observed when using Impella or VA-ECMO with patients under CS. A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, and Web of Science databases on 21 February 2022. Nonoverlapping studies with adult patients supported for CS with Impella or VA-ECMO were searched. Study designs including RCTs, observational studies, and economic evaluations were considered. Data on patient characteristics, type of support, and outcomes were extracted. Additionally, meta-analyses were performed on the most relevant and recurring outcomes, and results shown using forest plots. A total of 102 studies were included, 57% on Impella, 43% on VA-ECMO. The most common outcomes investigated were mortality/survival, duration of support, and bleeding. Ischemic stroke was lower in patients treated with Impella compared to the VA-ECMO population, with statistically significant difference. Socio-economic outcomes including quality of life or resource use were not reported in any study. The study highlighted areas where further data collection is needed to clarify the value of complex, new technologies in the treatment of CS that will enable comparative assessments focusing both on the health impact on patient outcomes and on the financial burden for government budgets. Future studies need to fill the gap to comply with recent regulatory updates at the European and national levels.

Cardiac Rehabilitation in Severe Heart Failure Patients with Impella 5.0 Support via the Subclavian Artery Approach Prior to Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Impella 5.0 circulatory support via subclavian artery (SA) access may be a safe approach for patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation (CR). In this case series, we retrospectively analyzed the demographic characteristics, physical function, and CR data of six patients who underwent Impella 5.0 implantation via the SA prior to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation between October 2013 and June 2021. The median age was 48 years, and one patient was female. Grip strength was maintained or increased in all patients before LVAD implantation (pre-LVAD) compared to after Impella 5.0 implantation. The pre-LVAD knee extension isometric strength (KEIS) was less than 0.46 kgf/kg in two patients and more than 0.46 kgf/kg in three patients (unavailable KEIS data, n = 1). With Impella 5.0 implantation, two patients could ambulate, one could stand, two could sit on the edge of the bed, and one remained in bed. One patient lost consciousness during CR due to decreased Impella flow. There were no other serious adverse events. Impella 5.0 implantation via the SA allows mobilization, including ambulation, prior to LVAD implantation, and CR can be performed relatively safely.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: practical considerations for all stakeholders

Originally intended for life-saving salvage therapy, the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices has become increasingly widespread in a variety of clinical settings in the contemporary era. Their use as a short-term, prophylactic support vehicle has expanded to include procedures in the catheterization laboratory, electrophysiology suite, operating room and intensive care unit. Accordingly, MCS device design and technology continue to develop at a rapid pace. In this Review, we describe the functionality, indications, management and complications associated with temporary MCS, together with scenario-specific utilization, goal-directed development and bioengineering of future devices. We address various considerations for the use of temporary MCS devices in both prophylactic and rescue scenarios, with input from stakeholders from various cardiovascular specialties, including interventional and heart failure cardiology, electrophysiology, cardiothoracic anaesthesiology, critical care and cardiac surgery.

Retrospective Analysis of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Use in Cardiology Ward Patients Undergoing Coronary Angiography between 2012 and 2020

We aimed to evaluate the rate and risk factors of in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing coronary angiography/angioplasty with IABP use as support. We included 214 patients (mean age: 67.5 ± 7.5 years, M/F: 143/71) with an IABP used as the periprocedural support between 2012 and 2020. The main indications for an IABP were cardiogenic shock (143 pts; 66.8%: 55 survivors (51.9%)/88 non-survivors (81.5%); p < 0.001) and infarction with an initial significant impairment of ventricular function (34 pts; 15.9%: 21 (19.8%)/13 (12%); p = 0.12). In-hospital death was the endpoint of this study. In-hospital death occurred in 108 (50.5%, M/F: 69.4%/30.6%) patients. The mean hospitalization time was 7 days (2-13); deaths occurred more frequently on the first day after the procedure (1 (1-3 days) vs. 3 (1-8), p < 0.001); and the mean hospitalization time was 2 days (1-6) for non-survivors vs. 11 days (7-17) for survivors (p < 0.001). Regarding the patients who did not survive, they were older (69 vs. 66.5, p = 0.043), their LVEF was lower (0-15%: 15 (13.9%) vs. 12 (11.3%); 16-40%: 73 (67.6%) vs. 65 (61.3%); >40%: 14 (13%) vs. 29 (27.4%); p = 0.007), and hyperlipidemia was less common (30 (27.8%) vs. 55 (51.9%) pts, p = 0.001) than in those who survived. The IABP is still a method for cardiac support; however, mortality limits its use.

Mechanical circulatory device utilization in cardiac arrest: Racial and gender disparities and impact on mortality

The objectives of this retrospective study include identifying the utilization trend of mechanical circulatory devices (MCD) such as Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), Impella and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in admissions with cardiac arrest, determining whether racial or gender disparities exist in their usage, and discerning if their use is associated with a reduction in mortality. By leveraging the National Inpatient Sample, we identified 229,180 weighted adult cardiac arrest admissions between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018. MCD were used in 6005 admissions (2.6%). IABP had the highest utilization, representing 77.8% of all MCDs, followed by Impella at 24.8%. The utilization of IABP decreased from 90.6% to 71.6%, while the use of Impella increased from 13.5% to 29.8% in this study period; both trends were statistically significant. MCD use was found to be lower in women compared to men (1.4% vs 3.6, P < 0.001) and in the Black population compared to White (1.5% vs 2.8%, P < 0.001). There was no difference in MCD utilization between Hispanic and the White cohorts. In-hospital mortality was lower in admissions associated with MCD (31.4% vs 45.9%, P < 0.001). ECMO was associated with the lowest mortality rate at 14.3%, followed by IABP at 28.1%. The use of Impella and combination therapy were not associated with a significant decrease in mortality. In conclusion, MCD use may decrease mortality in cardiac arrest, however their utilization appears to be lower in African Americans and in women.

Handling high-risk patients in the catheterization laboratory

Protected percutaneous coronary intervention is considered a life-saving procedure for high-risk patients. Therefore it is important that the interventional cardiology team is prepared, the procedure is planned, and potential complications, as well as bail out strategies are considered. Throughout the procedure, it is critical to monitor the patient to identify any early signs of deterioration or changes in patient well-being to avoid any potential complications.

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.

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Versus Impella in Managing Cardiogenic Shock After Myocardial Infarction: Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Despite early revascularization and supportive medical therapies, acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) remains the leading cause of death in patient's with myocardial infarction. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been the device of choice for these patients but has failed to show mortality benefit over medical therapy alone. The Impella (AbioMed, Danvers, Massachusetts) is a more recently developed alternative in bridging patients to recovery.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate available evidence comparing mortality with the use of Impella (2.0 or CP) versus IABP in patients with AMICS.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched to find articles comparing the outcomes of IABP versus Impella in AMICS patients. A total of 7 articles met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was the primary outcome observed. Secondary outcomes included myocardial recovery and complications from device implantation. All studies support that there is no statistically significant reduction in mortality when utilizing the Impella over the IABP.

DISCUSSION

Further research in an adequately powered randomized clinical trial is needed to shed light on the clinical characteristics of patients after AMICS who would benefit from 1 type of mechanical circulatory support over another. The therapy chosen is determined by provider discretion and skill set, as well as device availability. It is important for all care team members, including the critical care nurse, to understand the implications and complications associated with each therapy, so care can be catered to the individual patient's needs.

Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used to support patients with cardiogenic shock; however, outcome results are limited to single-center studies, registry data and select reviews. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching three databases for relevant studies reporting on microaxial LVAD use in adults with cardiogenic shock. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) based on short-term mortality (primary outcome), long-term mortality and device complications (secondary outcomes). We assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE approaches, respectively. A total of 63 observational studies (3896 patients), 6 propensity-score matched (PSM) studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (384 patients). The pooled short-term mortality from observational studies was 46.5% (95%-CI: 42.7–50.3%); this was 48.9% (95%-CI: 43.8–54.1%) amongst PSM studies and RCTs. The pooled mortality at 90 days, 6 months and 1 year was 41.8%, 51.1% and 54.3%, respectively. Hemolysis and access-site bleeding were the most common complications, each with a pooled incidence of around 20%. The reported mortality rate of microaxial LVADs was not significantly lower than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP). Current evidence does not suggest any mortality benefit when compared to ECMO or IABP.

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]).

Advances in the treatment of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the UK

The treatment of acute coronary occlusion with Primary PCI has been a major factor in improving outcomes of patients suffering STEMI in the last 15 years, and is the standard treatment for patients suffering STEMI in the UK.

Treatment is beneficial for patients presenting within 12 hours of the onset of symptoms, with the goal being opening of the occluded artery within 150 min of the call for help.

Opening of the occluded artery is typically completed with a drug-eluting stent followed by administration of antiplatelet medications for 12 months. Procedures are performed using the radial artery which is associated with improved outcomes compared to vascular access via the femoral artery.

Evidence is growing to support full revascularisation including the treatment of severe narrowing in other blood vessels as well as the culprit vessel.

Cardiogenic Shock Management and Research: Past, Present, and Future Outlook

Although great strides have been made in the pathophysiological understanding, diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock (CS), morbidity and mortality in patients presenting with the condition remain high. Acute MI is the commonest cause of CS; consequently, most existing literature concerns MI-associated CS. However, there are many more phenotypes of patients with acute heart failure. Medical treatment and mechanical circulatory support are well-established therapeutic options, but evidence for many current treatment regimens is limited. The issue is further complicated by the fact that implementing adequately powered, randomized controlled trials are challenging for many reasons. In this review, the authors discuss the history, landmark trials, current topics of medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support regimens, and future perspectives of CS management.

Hemodynamic assessment and risk classification for successful weaning of Impella in patients with cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Clinical predictors for successful weaning of patients from Impella heart pump have not been clarified. We aimed to elucidate the relationship between pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) parameters at the time of Impella weaning and subsequent outcomes.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients who had received Impella for cardiogenic shock. PAC data were collected immediately before Impella weaning. Patients were classified as non-survivors if they died or required any mechanical circulatory support reintroduction within 30 days of weaning.

RESULTS

Of 81 patients enrolled, 61 underwent Impella weaning. Of these, 16 were non-survivors. Predictive indicators of non-survival were high pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP; hazard ratio [HR] per 5 mmHg 1.97, 95% CI 1.35-2.80; p < 0.001), high mean pulmonary artery pressure (MPAP; HR per 5 mmHg 1.90, 1.38-2.58; p < 0.001), and low cardiac power output (CPO; HR per 0.1 Watts 0.71, 0.52-0.92; p = 0.006). Cutoff values of PAWP 20 mmHg, MPAP 22 mmHg, and CPO 0.59 Watts showed strong associations with 30-day non-survival risk (low risk 8% in patients with low PAWP and high CPO or 4% in patients with low MPAP and high CPO; high risk 100% in patients with high PAWP and low CPO or 82% in patients with high MPAP and low CPO).

CONCLUSIONS

PAWP or MPAP higher than the cutoff with CPO below the cutoff at Impella weaning were associated with worse outcomes. We proposed a risk classification model for successful Impella weaning using PAC.

Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Assist Devices

Percutaneous mechanical assist devices are used in patients with cardiogenic shock. The purpose of this article is to familiarize critical care nurses with the various types of percutaneous mechanical assist devices, including the intra-aortic balloon pump, the Impella device, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and the TandemHeart device. Each type of device requires specific nursing care. In a patient with cardiogenic shock, the monitoring, care, and interventions provided by an experienced critical care nurse can make the difference between survival and death.

A Meta-Analysis Comparing Venoarterial (VA) Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) to Impella for Acute Right Ventricle Failure

The right ventricular complication happens when the right ventricle (RV) fails to move sufficient blood through the pulmonary circle to enable enough left ventricular pumping. A significant pulmonary embolism/right-sided myocardial infarction may cause this to develop suddenly in a previously healthy heart, but many of the patients treated in the critical care unit have gradual, compensated RV failure as a result of chronic heart and lung disease. RV failure management aims to decrease afterload and improve right-side filling pressures. Vasoactive medications have a lower effect on lowering vascular obstruction in the pulmonary circulation than in the systemic circle because the vascular tone is lower in the pulmonary circulation. Any factors that induce an elevation in pulmonary vascular tone must be addressed, and selective pulmonary vasodilators must be administered in a prescription that does not result in systemic hypotension or compromise oxygenation. The system-based systolic arterial pressure should be kept near the RV systolic pressure to ensure RV perfusion. When these efforts prove futile, judicious application of inotropic medications for better RV contractility may help ensure cardiac output. After obtaining the finest medical treatment, certain individuals may need the implantation of a mechanical circulatory support device. This meta-analysis is intended to compare the Impella and venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mechanical supports for patients with acute right ventricular failure. This comparison should demonstrate the best mechanical support between the two through thorough analysis. The analysis was begun by data collection from relevant sites; PUBMED and EMBASE were searched in collaboration with Google Scholar. Keywords were searched: Impella for acute right ventricle failure and VA ECMO for acute right ventricle failure. The results that were close to the search titles had their respective articles downloaded for further scrutiny. The search finally brought 1001 related articles that were exposed to further analysis to find more refined and closer articles within the needs of this meta-analysis. After extensive scrutiny, 23 articles were found to be the best for these analyses. The data showed that VA ECMO had better results than Impella for acute RV failure. However, the data were not statistically significant, as either the numbers of the studies were not enough or the null hypothesis was true and there was no true difference between them. More studies will be needed to confirm this.

Outcomes of Impella compared with intra-aortic balloon pump in ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Background

Despite limited randomized trial data demonstrating clinical efficacy, the utilization of Impella in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) has increased over time.

Methods

We identified 75,769 hospitalizations with STEMI complicated by CS between October 2015 and December 2018 using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. From this cohort, hospitalizations were stratified according to IABP or Impella placement. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were divided into efficacy, safety, and device-related complications. Propensity-score matching was used to account for differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Logistic regression was performed to get the odds ratio and confidence intervals.

Results

Among 75,769 admissions with STEMI and CS, hospitalizations with <18 years old, both IABP and Impella placement, and who underwent ECMO and/or LVAD implantation were excluded. After the exclusion, out of 72,791 admissions, 25,260 (34.70%) hospitalizations received IABP, and 7825 (10.75%) received Impella support. After propensity score-matched analysis, 7345 hospitalizations were included in each group. All-cause in-hospital mortality was higher in the hospitalizations requiring Impella support as compared to IABP (42.10% vs. 31.54%, adjusted OR 1.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60-1.84, P < 0.0001). Impella was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital complications and hospitalization cost compared with IABP.

Conclusion

Impella compared with IABP in STEMI patients with CS was associated with higher in-hospital mortality and other adverse clinical and procedural outcomes.

Predictors of Short-term Survival in Cardiogenic Shock Patients Requiring Left Ventricular Support Using the Impella CP or 5.0

Background

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) have been used to support patients who are in cardiogenic shock (CS). There is limited data on 30-day mortality predictors in patients supported by an Impella pVAD.

Methods

All CS patients requiring left-sided Impella implantation in Harefield Hospital (Greater London, United Kingdom) between 2017 and 2020 were included in the current study. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of 30-day mortality.

Results

A total of 92 patients were included. The mean age was 53.8 ± 14.9 years, and 78.3% were male. CS etiology was predominantly acute coronary syndromes (44.6%), followed by decompensated dilated cardiomyopathy (28.3%). Survival at 30 days was 63% (58 of 92). Deceased patients had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (15.1 ± 9.6 vs 21.8 ± 14.2, P < 0.001), higher serum lactate levels (2.8[1.6 to 5.4] vs 1.45 [1.08 to 3.53], P = 0.012), a higher percentage of prolonged invasive ventilation (> 24 hours) (64.7% vs 13.8%, P < 0.001), and worse renal and liver function. Serum lactate, baseline LVEF, and prolonged ventilation (> 24 hours) were independent predictors of 30-day survival with an area under the curve of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.769 to 0.930), P < 0.001.

Conclusions

In the current retrospective registry of patients requiring Impella pVAD implantation, independent 30-day mortality predictors included serum lactate, baseline LVEF, and prolonged invasive ventilation (> 24 hours). These parameters could highlight patients who would benefit from earlier mechanical circulatory support escalation or neurologic assessment to inform withdrawal decisions.

The Effects of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement on Native Valve Competency

Impella left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are implanted in the left ventricle across the aortic valve. Several cases of secondary aortic insufficiency (AI) or mitral regurgitation (MR) after Impella LVAD use have been reported. Secondary valvulopathies can worsen cardiac function. This single center retrospective study sought to characterize the incidence of secondary AI and MR development after Impella LVAD support. One hundred fifty-two patients who underwent Impella LVAD support between April 2014 and August 2019 were included. Patient demographics, implant indications, duration of support, pre- and post-Impella LVAD echocardiograms, and incidence of increased AI/MR were analyzed. Impella 5.0 and Impella CP were subanalyzed. Following exclusion criteria, AI and MR were analyzed in 93 and 78 patients, respectively. An increase in AI and MR was seen in 17.2% and 12.8% of patients with an event per support days of 0.03 and 0.02, respectively. Clinically significant increases in AI and MR were seen in 3.2% (n = 3), 6.4% (n = 5), respectively. The incidences of increased AI (p = 0.33) and MR (p = 0.45) were similar between Impella 5.0 and Impella CP patients. Worsening AI and MR clinically occur at a low incidence with Impella LVAD use. However, careful follow-up is still warranted.

Clinical features and outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: early vs recent experience with impella

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical features and outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated in the early experience with Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device and patients treated recently.

BACKGROUND

Since pre-market approval (PMA) of Impella device as treatment for AMICS, use of the device has grown considerably.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 649 AMICS patients treated with perioperative Impella, with 291 patients treated from 2008 to 2014 comprising the early experience cohort and 358 patients treated from 2017 to 2019 comprising the recent experience cohort. The primary end point was risk adjusted in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

Mean age and gender distribution of patients was similar in the two cohorts. The recent cohort had more invasive hemodynamic monitoring (64% vs 46%; P < .001) and less use of an intra-aortic balloon pump prior to Impella (15% vs 41%; P < .001). Recently treated patients were significantly more likely to receive Impella support prior to PCI (58% vs 44%; P = .005). In-hospital mortality was lower in the recent cohort (48% vs 56%; P = .043). This difference was however no longer significant after risk adjustment (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, P = .59). Rates of acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complications requiring surgery were also significantly lower in the recent cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of Impella for AMICS during recent years is associated with lower unadjusted in-hospital mortality, which may reflect better patient selection, earlier device implantation, and improved management algorithms. In-depth understanding of these factors may inform the development of future treatment protocols.

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.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcome of In-Hospital Bleeding in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

Bleeding after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality. The frequency and consequences of bleeding events in patients with AMICS are not well described. The objective was to investigate incidence and outcome of bleeding complications among unselected patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) and referred for immediate revascularization. Bleeding events were assessed by review of medical records in consecutive AMICS patients admitted between 2010 and 2017. Bleedings during admission were classified according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification. Patients who did not survive to admission in the intensive care unit were excluded. Of the 1,716 patients admitted with AMICS, 1,532 patients (89%) survived to ICU admission. At 30 days, mortality was 48%. Severe bleedings classified as BARC 3/5 were seen in 87 non-coronary bypass grafting patients (6.1%). Co-morbidity did not differ among patients; however, patients who had a BARC 3/5 bleeding had significantly higher lactate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission, indicating a more severe state of shock. The use of mechanical assist devices was significantly associated with severe bleeding events. Univariable analysis showed that patients with a BARC 3/5 bleeding had a significantly higher 30-day mortality hazard compared with patients without severe bleedings. The association did not sustain after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.64; 1.26, p = 0.52). In conclusion, severe bleeding events according to BARC classification in an all-comer population of patients with AMICS were not associated with higher mortality when adjusting for immediate management, hemodynamic, and metabolic state. This indicates that mortality in these patients is primarily related to other factors.

Impella 5.0 support before, during, and after surgical ventriculoplasty following acute myocardial infarction in the COVID-19 era: a case report

Background

Left ventricular (LV) aneurysms complicate anterior myocardial infarctions (MIs) in 8–15% of cases. In case of associated LV dysfunction, rapidly evolving heart failure may follow, and urgent surgery becomes life-saving.

Case summary

Following an acute anterior MI treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, which resulted in apical hypokinesis, depressed LV function, and moderate mitral regurgitation, a 70-year-old male patient kept in contact with our cardiology department through phone calls. Over 6 weeks, the patient's conditions worsened. For fear of contracting COVID-19, he refused to attend to the Emergency Room. Conditions did not improve despite medical therapy adjustments, and he was admitted to hospital following a syncope. Computed tomography scan revealed pneumonia, and he was placed in a ‘grey’ ward while waiting for nose-swab results for COVID-19. A rapid escalation of treatment was necessary as conditions did not improve with low-dose inotropes, and he required invasive ventilation. An Impella 5.0 was implanted as support prior to surgery, was maintained during the procedure and as a means of weaning off extracorporeal circulation. Surgery was successful and Impella 5.0 was removed on postoperative Day 5.

Discussion

To date, Impella use in cardiothoracic surgery has been described in case of ventricular septal rupture or as a bridge to permanent LV assist device. In our case, Impella 5.0 was implanted, used as a bridge to surgery, and as postoperative support in a patient with evolving cardiogenic shock due to LV aneurysm and depressed LV ejection fraction following acute MI, in the difficult setting of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis

Aims

The mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) is high. The role of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems is unclear. We aimed to compare patients receiving Impella versus ECLS (extracorporal life support) with regard to baseline characteristics, feasibility, and outcomes in CS.

Methods and results

This is a retrospective cohort study including CS patients over 18 years with a complete follow‐up of the primary endpoint and available baseline lactate level, receiving haemodynamic support either by Impella 2.5 or ECLS from two European registries. The decision for device implementation was made at the discretion of the treating physician. The primary endpoint of this study was all‐cause mortality at 30 days. A propensity score for the use of Impella was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to obtain adjusted odds ratios (aOR).

In total, 149 patients were included, receiving either Impella (n = 73) or ECLS (n = 76) for CS. The feasibility of device implantation was high (87%) and similar (aOR: 3.14; 95% CI: 0.18–56.50; P = 0.41) with both systems. The rates of vascular injuries (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.10–3.50; P = 0.56) and bleedings requiring transfusions (aOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.09–2.10; P = 0.29) were similar in ECLS patients and Impella patients. The use of Impella or ECLS was not associated with increased odds of mortality (aOR: 4.19; 95% CI: 0.53–33.25; P = 0.17), after correction for propensity score and baseline lactate level. Baseline lactate level was independently associated with increased odds of 30 day mortality (per mmol/L increase; OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.14–1.45; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In CS patients, the adjusted mortality rates of both ECLS and Impella were high and similar. The baseline lactate level was a potent predictor of mortality and could play a role in patient selection for therapy in future studies. In patients with profound CS, the type of device is likely to be less important compared with other parameters including non‐cardiac and neurological factors.

Heart failure: role and point of view of cardiac intensivist

Heart failure is an acute or chronic syndrome where the heart is unable to provide adequate amount of oxygen to body tissues. The treatment of heart failure aims to give an immediate answer in terms of regression of volume overload and restoration of hemodynamic stability and then to ensure management of clinical exacerbation, reduction in hospital stay, and increasing of survival. The pharmacological treatment of heart failure includes drugs with different strength of evidence. When the patient is no more responsive to medical therapy a non-pharmacological approach may be required. The first step is cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardiac defibrillator. Then hospitalization and inotropic support may be needed. When cardiac disease reaches the end stage, the severe decrease in multi organ perfusion requires a quick therapeutic response. This is a time dependent scenario, when mechanical circulatory support (MCS) plays a crucial role. MCS may be used as temporary hemodynamic support on situations where myocardial recovery is likely, such as after revascularization and in cases of fulminant acute myocarditis. Conversion to ventricular assist devices or transplantation should be considered if longer duration of MCS is required. Advances in the treatment of cardiogenic shock patients in terms of pharmacological therapies, short term and long term MCS could provide opportunities to improve survival, but they also increase the complexity of clinical care. For this reason a multidisciplinary shock team approach is paramount for early symptom detection, to guide initial haemodynamic therapy and for the right choice of MCS device at the right time.

Impella support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is associated with high mortality rates. Data has shown that intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support does not provide a survival benefit over optimal medical therapy in AMICS. Despite lack of supportive evidence, IABP is still commonly used in these clinical situations. The Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) (Abiomed, Denver, MA) rapidly deploys superior mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with AMICS. However, the safety and efficacy of Impella in AMICS is a matter of ongoing investigation, and its role in AMICS management is not yet fully established.

METHODS

The databases of Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases were searched from inception to March 2020. Relevant randomized trials and observational studies comparing Impella versus IABP in AMICS were identified and a meta-analysis was performed using the random effect model. The efficacy endpoint of interest was short-term mortality (defined as in-hospital or 30-day mortality). The safety endpoints of interest were major bleeding, limb complications, stroke and hemolysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2 randomized trials and 5 observational studies with 3921 patients were included. No difference in short-term mortality between the two groups [RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.87-1.33, P = 0.49] was found. For safety endpoints, Impella was associated with significantly higher incidence of major bleeding [RR: 2.03, 95% CI 1.56-2.64, P < 0.0001], limb complications [RR: 3.67, 95% CI 1.56-8.65, P = 0.003] as well as hemolysis [RR: 9.46, 95% CI 1.75-51.22, P = 0.009] compared with IABP. No significant difference was observed for the incidence of stroke [RR: 1.07 95% CI 0.34-3.31 P = 0.91].

CONCLUSION

Impella support in AMICS patients was associated with a significantly increased risk of bleeding, limb complications and hemolysis without an improved short-term survival advantage compared with IABP.

Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support

Background

Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with Impella in this setting are lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate as well as to compare the prognostic accuracy of acute physiology and chronic health II (APACHE II), simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), CardShock, the prediction of cardiogenic shock outcome for AMI patients salvaged by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and the survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (SAVE) score in patients with OHCA refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella 2.5 or CP.

Methods

Retrospective study of 65 consecutive Impella 2.5 and 32 CP patients treated in our cardiac arrest center from September 2015 until June 2020.

Results

Overall survival to discharge was 44.3%. The expected mortality according to scores was SOFA 70%, SAPS II 90%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 50%, and SAVE score 70% in the 2.5 group; SOFA 70%, SAPS II 85%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 75%, and SAVE score 70% in the CP group. The ENCOURAGE score was the most effective predictive model of mortality outcome presenting a moderate area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, followed by the CardShock, APACHE II, IABP, and SAPS score. These derived an AUC between 0.71 and 0.78. The SOFA and the SAVE scores failed to predict the outcome in this particular setting of refractory CS after OHCA due to an AMI.

Conclusion

The available intensive care and newly developed CS scores offered only a moderate prognostic accuracy for outcomes in OHCA patients with refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella. A new score is needed in order to guide the therapy in these patients.

Valvular complications following the Impella device implantation

BACKGROUND

Despite clear clinical benefits, there is limited evidence regarding possible complications of the novel mechanical support device Impella. Aortic and mitral valve regurgitation or injury are rare but potential complications following implantation of the Impella device.

METHODS

To evaluate valvular complications after the Impella device implantation, we have performed a comprehensive search of literature on multiple sites on this topic.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Ten case reports and one observational retrospective study were identified, with a total number of 19 patients identified. This article aims to draw attention to potential periprocedural complications relating to the Impella, in particular iatrogenic aortic and mitral valve injuries. Moreover, we have summarized our recommendations emphasizing the need for careful management and meticulous follow-up of these patients to avoid such potentially devastating complications.

Fulminant myocarditis: a comprehensive review from etiology to treatments and outcomes

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is characterized by a rapid progressive decline in cardiac function and a high mortality rate. Since the first report of FM patients in the 1980s, several clinical trials and research studies have been published increasing our knowledge regarding FM. Currently, the diagnosis of FM depends on various techniques including electrocardiography, echocardiography, endomyocardial biopsy, and cardiac magnetic resonance. The development of mechanical circulation support (MCS) devices and progress in our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying FM, treatment regimens have evolved from simple symptomatic treatment to a life support-based comprehensive treatment approach. The core mechanism underlying the development of FM is the occurrence of an inflammatory cytokine storm. This review provides a comprehensive account of the current understanding of FM pathophysiology and knowledge regarding its etiology, pathophysiology, treatments, and outcomes.

Intraaortic Balloon Pump vs Peripheral Ventricular Assist Device Use in the United States

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to characterize practical use trends and outcomes for intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) use in cardiogenic shock at a national level.

METHODS

An analysis of all adult patients admitted nonelectively for cardiogenic shock from January 2008 through December 2017 was performed using the National Inpatient Sample. Trends of inpatient IABP and pVAD use were analyzed using survey-weighted estimates and the modified Cochran-Armitage test for significance. Multivariable regression models and inverse probability of treatment weights were used to perform risk-adjusted analyses of pVAD mortality, a composite of adverse events (AE), and resource use, with IABP as reference.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 774,310 patients admitted with cardiogenic shock, 143,051 received a device: IABP, 127,792 (16.5%); or pVAD, 15,259 (2.0%). IABP use decreased (23.8% to 12.7%; P for trend <.001), whereas pVAD implantation increased significantly during the study period (0.2% to 4.5%; P for trend <.001). Inverse probability of treatment weights demonstrated significantly higher odds of mortality with pVAD (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.2), but not AE (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.27), compared with IABP. After risk adjustment, pVAD use was associated with an additional $15,202 (P < .001) in cost for survivors and $29,643 for nonsurvivors (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the study period, the rate of pVAD use for cardiogenic shock significantly increased. Compared with IABP, pVAD use was associated with increased mortality, higher costs, and several AEs. Multi-institutional clinical trials with rigorous inclusion criteria are warranted to evaluate the clinical utility of pVADs in the modern era.

Association between serum lactate levels and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving mechanical circulatory support: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the prognostic value of peak serum lactate and lactate clearance at several time points in cardiogenic shock treated with temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or Impella CP®.

METHODS

Serum lactate and clearance were measured before MCS and at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h post-MCS in 43 patients at four tertiary-care centers in Southern Brazil. Prognostic value was assessed by univariable and multivariable analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

VA-ECMO was the most common MCS modality (58%). Serum lactate levels at all time points and lactate clearance after 6 h were associated with mortality on unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Lactate levels were higher in non-survivors at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after MCS. Serum lactate > 1.55 mmol/L at 24 h was the best single prognostic marker of 30-day mortality [area under the ROC curve = 0.81 (0.67-0.94); positive predictive value = 86%). Failure to improve serum lactate after 24 h was associated with 100% mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum lactate was an important prognostic biomarker in cardiogenic shock treated with temporary MCS. Serum lactate and lactate clearance at 24 h were the strongest independent predictors of short-term survival.

Contemporary National Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock in Patients with Prior Chronic Kidney Disease and End-Stage Renal Disease

Background: There are limited data on acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes in AMI-CS stratified by CKD stages. Methods: A retrospective cohort of AMI-CS during 2005–2016 from the National Inpatient Sample was categorized as no CKD, CKD stage-III (CKD-III), CKD stage-IV (CKD-IV) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). CKD-I/II were excluded. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). We also evaluated acute kidney injury (AKI) and acute hemodialysis in non-ESRD admissions. Results: Of 372,412 AMI-CS admissions, CKD-III, CKD-IV and ESRD comprised 20,380 (5.5%), 7367 (2.0%) and 18,109 (4.9%), respectively. Admissions with CKD were, on average, older, of the White race, bearing Medicare insurance, of a lower socioeconomic stratum, with higher comorbidities, and higher rates of acute organ failure. Compared to the cohort without CKD, CKD-III, CKD-IV and ESRD had lower use of coronary angiography (72.7%, 67.1%, 56.9%, 61.1%), PCI (53.7%, 43.8%, 38.4%, 37.6%) and MCS (47.9%, 38.3%, 33.3%, 34.2%), respectively (all p < 0.001). AKI and acute hemodialysis use increased with increase in CKD stage (no CKD–38.5%, 2.6%; CKD-III–79.1%, 6.5%; CKD-IV–84.3%, 12.3%; p < 0.001). ESRD (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.25 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.21–1.31]; p < 0.001), but not CKD-III (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.69–0.75); p < 0.001) or CKD-IV (OR 0.82 [95 CI 0.77–0.87] was predictive of in-hospital mortality. Conclusions: CKD/ESRD is associated with lower use of evidence-based therapies. ESRD was an independent predictor of higher in-hospital mortality in AMI-CS.

Deploying Mechanical Circulatory Support Via the Axillary Artery in Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

We sought to study the feasibility of axillary artery as alternative access for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) patients with severe occlusive peripheral artery disease (PAD). In patients with severe PAD, the iliofemoral artery may be so diseased preventing deployment of MCS, precluding the use of lifesaving therapy. In such circumstances, the axillary artery may be a viable access site. Records of all patients presenting with cardiogenic shock or HR-PCI requiring MCS through axillary artery access at our institution from January 2016 to September 2018 were examined. Demographics, clinical, procedural, and outcomes data were collected on all patients. A total of 48 patients presented with cardiogenic shock (60%) or HR-PCI (40%) requiring MCS via axillary artery due to prohibitive PAD (mean age 66 ± 11 years). Admission diagnoses were non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (38%), unstable angina (23%), ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (19%), and cardiac arrest (21%). Time from axillary access to activation of Impella was 11.9 ± 4 minutes. Four patients required concomitant Impella RP for right ventricular support due to biventricular cardiogenic shock. Twenty-two patients died before Impella was explanted due to multiorgan failure, stroke, and infection. None of the patients who died had vascular complications related to axillary access. Axillary artery appears to be a viable alternative access for large bore devices in patients with prohibitive PAD. As experience of the field with this approach grows, it may be the default access for deployment of large bore sheaths in the future.

The science of safety: complications associated with the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and best practices to maximize safety

Acute mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used in cardiogenic shock (CS) despite a lack of high-quality clinical evidence to guide their use. Multiple devices exist across a spectrum from modest to complete support, and each is associated with unique risks. In this review, we summarize existing data on complications associated with the three most widely used acute MCS platforms: the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella systems, and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). We review evidence from available randomized trials and highlight challenges comparing complication rates from case series and comparative observational studies where a lack of granular data precludes appropriate matching of patients by CS severity. We further offer a series of best practices to help shock practitioners minimize the risk of MCS-associated complications and ensure the best possible outcomes for patients.

Prognostic Impact of Active Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction, Results from the Culprit-Shock Trial

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the use and prognostic impact of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in a large prospective contemporary cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

BACKGROUND

Although increasingly used in clinical practice, data on the efficacy and safety of active MCS devices in patients with CS complicating AMI are limited.

METHODS

This is a predefined subanalysis of the CULPRIT-SHOCK randomized trial and prospective registry. Patients with CS, AMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were categorized in two groups: (1) use of at least one active MCS device vs. (2) no active MCS or use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) only. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or renal replacement therapy at 30 days.

RESULTS

Two hundred of 1055 (19%) patients received at least one active MCS device (n = 112 Impella^®; n = 95 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); n = 6 other devices). The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients treated with active MCS devices compared with those without active MCS devices (142 of 197, 72% vs. 374 of 827, 45%; p < 0.001). All-cause mortality and bleeding rates were significantly higher in the active MCS group (all p < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, the use of active MCS was significantly associated with the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7-5.9; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, active MCS devices were used in approximately one fifth of patients. Patients treated with active MCS devices showed worse outcome at 30 days and 1 year.