Practical training concept for perfusionists at the heart and diabetes center Nordrhein-Westfalen

BackgroundIncreasing regulations and requirements of advisory bodies, in particular the Joint Federal Committee and the Medical Service of the health insurance funds, make it necessary to employ only demonstrably well-trained perfusionists. The minimum requirement for this staff is EBCP certification. Currently there is limited availability of such specialists on the German market. Therefore, the qualification of young people in this area is of central importance. The aim of this paper is to strengthen the training of perfusionists at our centre, to standardise the process and to provide the respective student with a "roadmap" to their internship.Material & MethodsThe structure is based on a rough division of the 24 weeks of internship. This is described in detail in the following and is backed up with the learning objectives for the respective time periods.ResultsAt our centre, practical training has been standardized and clear responsibilities have been defined. Furthermore, as a centre of maximum care in the field of cardiac surgery, we can offer students the necessary number of perfusions in just six months to meet the requirements of the ECBP for practical training. According to this concept, 20 perfusionists have been successfully trained in the last 8 years. All of them have passed the exams and have been certified according to EBCP.ConclusionThe aim of the practical semester is for the student to be in a position at the end of the semester to independently supervise simple cardiac surgery procedures with the aid of the Extra- Corporal Circulation (ECC) and to carry this out in accordance with the currently valid guidelines and directives (1-8) and the departmental procedural instructions based on them. Great emphasis is placed to the students becoming aware of their competence to act, knowing their limits and being able to assess when these limits have been reached and the involvement of experienced colleagues is necessary to ensure patient safety.

Comparison of mechanical resuscitation by an LV Impella device to extracorporeal resuscitation using VAECMO in a large animal model

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an effective treatment for cardiac arrest (CA). Percutaneous left ventricular (LV) assist devices such as the Impella ECP (intravascular CPR [ICPR]) have been proposed as a less invasive alternative. The aim of this study was to explore the haemodynamic differences between ECPR and ICPR using a large animal model of electrically induced CA. Fourteen juvenile female German landrace pigs (72.4 ± 9.8 kg) were subjected to electrically induced CA for 5 mins followed by either ECPR (veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO]) or ICPR (Impella ECP). Haemodynamic parameters and echocardiographic ventricular function indicators were monitored. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was continued until five hours after the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), when the devices were removed. Resuscitation outcomes and the haemodynamic effects of ECPR and ICPR were compared. The cannulation time for ECMO (469 ± 129 s) was significantly longer than the time for Impella device implantation (153 ± 64 s, p < 0.001). ECPR facilitated ROSC in 6/6 animals, whereas ICPR facilitated ROSC in 6/8 animals (p = 0.19). Echocardiography revealed no difference in LV or right ventricular (RV) dysfunction between the ECPR- and ICPR-treated animals after resuscitation (LV-global longitudinal strain [GLS] 3 h post-ROSC: ICPR: - 16.5 ± 5.6% vs. ECPR: - 13.7 ± 5.9%, p = 0.99; RV-GLS 3 h post-ROSC: ICPR: - 15.9 ± 3.3% vs. ECPR: - 17.3 ± 10.6%, p = 0.99). MCS using VA-ECMO and the Impella device both provided effective haemodynamic support during CA and post-ROSC in this large animal model. Despite LV unloading conferring a hypothetical advantage for ICPR, no significant differences in myocardial recovery were observed.

Venoarterial Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock Complicated from an Acute Myocardial Infarction: An Overview and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

Background: Cardiogenic shock remains a significant cause of mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome, despite early interventions, such as coronary revascularization. Mechanical circulatory support devices, particularly venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), are increasingly being utilized to address this issue. Limited randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exist to evaluate the efficacy of VA-ECMO in cardiogenic shock related to acute coronary syndrome. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness of VA-ECMO in adult patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Trials were identified through database searches and selected based on specific inclusion criteria. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes including bleeding and vascular complications. Results: A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis, involving 4706 patients. The median age of the patients was 61.8 ± 4.1 years, with 76% of them being males. The analysis revealed that 30-day mortality rates for patients with cardiogenic shock receiving ECMO were still high, with a mortality of 63%. Vascular complications were identified as factors associated with a worse prognosis. Conclusions: The meta-analysis highlights the ongoing challenge of high mortality rates in cardiogenic shock patients despite the use of VA-ECMO. While VA-ECMO shows promise in providing circulatory support, further research is needed to explore ways to improve outcomes and reduce complications associated with the use of these devices. The complexity of patient management in cardiogenic shock cases underscores the need for a multidisciplinary approach to optimize treatment strategies and enhance patient outcomes.

Safety and utility of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Although mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is an increasingly utilized therapeutic option in AMI-CS, studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of different forms of MCS have yielded conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different forms of MCS.

METHODS

A database search was performed for studies reporting on the association of different forms of MCS with clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS. The primary efficacy endpoints were short term (≤30 days) and long term (>30 days) all-cause mortality. Secondary efficacy endpoints included recurrent AMI, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, device-related limb complications, moderate to severe bleeding events, and cerebrovascular accidents (CVA).

RESULTS

2752 patients with AMI-CS met inclusion criteria. Results were available comparing ECMO to other MCS or medical therapy alone, comparing IABP to medical therapy alone, and comparing pLVAD to IABP. Use of ECMO was not associated with lower risk of 30-day or long-term mortality compared to pVAD or standard medical therapy with or without IABP placement but was associated with higher risk of device-related limb complications and moderate to severe bleeding compared to pVAD. IABP use was not associated with a lower risk of 30 day or long-term mortality but was associated with higher risk of recurrent AMI and moderate to severe bleeding compared to medical therapy. Compared to IABP, pVAD use was associated with lower risk of CV mortality but not recurrent AMI. pVAD was associated with a higher risk of device-related limb complications and moderate to severe bleeding compared to IABP use.

CONCLUSION

Use of ECMO or IABP in patients with AMI-CS is not associated with significant improvement in mortality. pVAD is associated with a lower risk of CV mortality. All MCS types are associated with increased risk of complications. Additional high-quality studies are needed to determine the optimal MCS therapy for patients with AMI-CS.

Cardiooncology in the ICU - Cardiac Urgencies in Cancer Care

Cardiovascular disease is an increasing risk of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, related to an growing number of aging survivors with pre-existing cardiovascular disease and the use of traditional and novel cancer therapies with cardiotoxic effects. While many cardiac complications are chronic processes that develop over time, there are many acute processes that may arise in hospitalized patients. It is important for hospitalists and critical care physicians to be familiar with the recognition and management of these conditions in this unique population. This article reviews the presentation and management of common cardiac urgencies in critically ill cancer patients including acute decompensated heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, arrhythmias, hypertensive crises, pulmonary embolism, pericardial tamponade and myocarditis.

Mechanical Circulatory Support with Impella: Principles, Evidence, and Daily Practice

The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) microaxial pump is a percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) that has been shown to increase coronary perfusion, reduce myocardial oxygen demand, and improve peripheral organ perfusion. Therefore, indications for the Impella device include emergency use for cardiogenic shock (CS) and pre-emptive implantation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). However, despite their exponential use in cardiovascular practice over the past decade, there is limited randomized evidence to support the benefits of this therapy and growing concern regarding complication rates. In this review, we summarize the principles, evidence, and practical considerations of the most widely used Impella CP percutaneous left ventricular support in both CS and HR-PCI settings, moving from the historical background to current issues and future expectations for this device.

An important diagnostic marker of acute myocardial infarction patients: Plasma miRNA133 levels

The objective of this study was to explore changes in miRNA133 levels as a basis for clinical diagnostic markers in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). A total of 100 chest pain patient cases admitted to a hospital from June 2021 to December 2022 were used. The study involved the selection of 50 patients: 25 patients with unstable undetermined heart pain and 25 healthy subjects were included in the control group of 50 patients with non-AMI patients. Meanwhile, 50 patients with AMI were designated as the experimental group. Changes in miRNA133 levels in patients' plasma were analyzed for expression using quantitative fluorescence analysis. When the serum TPI, plasma NT-ProBNP, glycosylated hemoglobin, and plasma D-dimer index values were compared between the control and experimental groups, there was a statistically significant difference (P < .05). mi-RNA-133 had a mean plasma level value of 2.60 ± 1.01, the mean level value of mi-RNA-133 in patients with non-AMI was 1.34 ± 1.18, and the patients in the AMI group showed significantly high values of the mean plasma level of mi-RNA-133. The relative expression level value of cTnl in patients with AMI was 10.84 ± 12.64. Of the specificity and sensitivity diagnostics, mi-RNA-133 had the best diagnostic effect. The area under mi-RNA-133 in the regression curve was 95.4%, the specificity of the whole combination of indicators was 89.4% and the sensitivity was 100%. Finally, the correlation between mi-RNA-133 and white blood cell count (WBC) and TG was statistically significant (P < .05). In conclusion, changes in the level of mi-RNA-133 may be an important marker for diagnosing the status of patients with AMI, while a faster and more accurate method will emerge along with the improvement of the detection technology, and at the same time, due to the variability of the study cases and other limitations, further research will be carried out subsequently.

Prolonged Impella 5.0/5.5 support within different pathways of care for cardiogenic shock: the experience of a referral center

Aims

Impella 5.0 and 5.5 are promising low-invasive left ventricle (LV) temporary mechanical circulatory supports (tMCS) for cardiogenic shock due to LV mechanical unloading and are paired with powerful hemodynamic support. This study aimed to analyze data and destinies of patients supported with Impella 5.0/5.5 at a national referral center for cardiogenic shock and to assess the parameters associated with myocardial recovery and successful weaning.

Methods

A single-center observational study was conducted on all patients treated with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 from March 2018 to July 2023.

Results

A total of 59 patients underwent Impella 5.0/5.5 implantation due to profound cardiogenic shock, with acute myocardial infarction being the most frequent cause of shock (42 patients, 71%). The median duration of Impella support was 13 days (maximum duration of 52 days). Axillary cannulation was feasible in almost all patients, and 36% were mobilized during support. A total of 44 patients (75%) survived to the next therapy/recovery: 21 patients experienced recovery and 15 and 8 were bridged to long-term LVAD and heart transplantation, respectively. The global survival rate was 66%. The predictors of native heart recovery at multivariate analysis were the number of days on tMCS before upgrade to Impella 5.0/5.5 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (0.51-9) p = 0.0068] and improvement of LVEF within the first 7-10 days of support [HR 4.72 (1.34-16.7), p = 0.016].

Conclusions

Transcatheter systems such as Impella 5.0/5.5 revolutionized the field of tMCS. Myocardial recovery is the primary clinical target. Its prognostication and promotion are key to ensure the most proficuous course for each patient from cardiogenic shock to long-term event-free survival.

Structured Weaning From the Impella Left Ventricular Micro-Axial Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Experience From a Non-Cardiac Surgical Centre

BACKGROUND

The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) temporary percutaneous left ventricular assist device is increasingly used as mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMICS) or those undergoing high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The optimal weaning regimen remains to be defined.

METHOD

We implemented a structured weaning protocol in a series of 10 consecutive patients receiving Impella support for protected PCI or AMICS treated with PCI in a high volume non-cardiac surgery centre. Weaning after revascularisation was titrated to native heart recovery using both haemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

Ten patients (eight male, two female; aged 43-70 years) received Impella support for AMICS (80%) or protected PCI (20%). Cardiogenic shock was of Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions grade C-E of severity in 80%, and median left ventricular end-diastolic pressure was 31 mmHg. Protocol implementation allowed successful weaning in eight of 10 patients with a median support time of 29 hours (range, 4-48 hours). Explantation was associated with an increase in heart rate (81 vs 88 bpm; p=0.005), but no significant change in Cardiac Index (2.9 vs 2.9 L/min/m2), mean arterial pressure (79 vs 82 mmHg), vasopressor requirement (10% vs 10%), or serum lactate (1.0 vs 1.0). Median durations of intensive care and hospital stay were 3 and 6 days, respectively. At 30 days, the mortality rate was 20%, with median left ventricular ejection fraction of 40%.

CONCLUSIONS

A structured and dynamic weaning protocol for patients with AMICS and protected PCI supported by the Impella device is feasible in a non-cardiac surgery centre. Larger studies are needed to assess generalisability of such a weaning protocol.

Impella - Current issues and future expectations for the percutaneous, microaxial flow left ventricular assist device

The importance of temporary mechanical circulatory support for treating acute heart failure with cardiogenic shock is increasingly recognized, and Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) has received particular attention in this regard. Impella is an axial flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) built into the tip of a catheter. It is inserted via a peripheral artery and implanted into the left ventricle. Although the morphology of Impella is different from a typical LVAD, it has similar actions and effects as an LVAD in terms of left ventricular drainage and aortic blood delivery. Impella increases mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic blood flow, thereby improving peripheral organ perfusion and promoting recovery from multiple organ failure. In addition, left ventricular unloading with increased MAP increases coronary perfusion and decreases myocardial oxygen demand, thereby promoting myocardial recovery. Impella is also useful as a mechanical vent of the left ventricle in patients supported with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Indications for Impella include emergency use for cardiogenic shock and non-emergent use during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and ventricular tachycardia ablation. Its intended uses for cardiogenic shock include bridge to recovery, durable device, heart transplantation, and heart surgery. Prophylactic use of Impella in high-risk patients undergoing open heart surgery to prevent postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is also gaining attention. While there have been many case reports and retrospective studies on the benefits of Impella, there is little evidence based on sufficiently large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Currently, several RCTs are now ongoing, which are critical to determine when, for whom, and how these devices should be used. In this review, we summarize the principles, physiology, indications, and complications of the Impella support and discuss current issues and future expectations for the device.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Rationale and design of the ULYSS trial: A randomized multicenter evaluation of the efficacy of early Impella CP implantation in acute coronary syndrome complicated by cardiogenic shock

CONTEXT

Despite 20 years of improvement in acute coronary syndromes care, patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) remains a major clinical challenge with a stable incidence and mortality. While intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) did not meet its expectations, percutaneous mechanical circulatory supports (pMCS) with higher hemodynamic support, large availability and quick implementation may improve AMICS prognosis by enabling early hemodynamic stabilization and unloading. Both interventional and observational studies suggested a clinical benefit in selected patients of the IMPELLAⓇ CP device within in a well-defined therapeutic strategy. While promising, these preliminary results are challenged by others suggesting a higher rate of complications and possible poorer outcome. Given these conflicting data and its high cost, a randomized clinical trial is warranted to delineate the benefits and risks of this new therapeutic strategy.

DESIGN

The ULYSS trial is a prospective randomized open label, 2 parallel multicenter clinical trial that plans to enroll patients with AMICS for whom an emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is intended. Patients will be randomized to an experimental therapeutic strategy with pre-PCI implantation of an IMPELLAⓇ CP device on top of standard medical therapy or to a control group undergoing PCI and standard medical therapy. The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of this experimental strategy by a composite end point of death, need to escalate to ECMO, long-term left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation at 1 month. Among secondary objectives 1-year efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness will be assessed.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05366452.

Impella and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

AIMS

This study aimed to give contemporary insight into the use of Impella and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) and into associated outcomes, adverse events, and resource demands.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This nationwide observational cohort study describes all AMICS patients treated with Impella (ABIOMED, Danvers, MA, USA) and/or VA-ECMO in 2020-2021. Impella and/or VA-ECMO were used in 20% of all AMICS cases (n = 4088). Impella patients were older (34% vs. 13% >75 years, p < 0.001) and less frequently presented after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (18% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was lower in the Impella versus VA-ECMO cohort (61% vs. 67%, p = 0.001). Adverse events occurred less frequently in Impella-supported patients: acute haemorrhagic anaemia (36% vs. 68%, p < 0.001), cerebrovascular accidents (4% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), thromboembolisms of the extremities (5% vs. 8%, p < 0.001), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (21% vs. 25%, p = 0.004), acute kidney injury (44% vs. 53%, p < 0.001), and acute liver failure (7% vs. 12%, p < 0.001). Impella patients were discharged home directly more often (20% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) whereas VA-ECMO patients were more often discharged to another care facility (22% vs. 19%, p = 0.031). Impella patients had shorter hospital stays and lower hospital costs.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest, most recent European cohort study describing outcomes, adverse events, and resource demands based on claims data in patients with Impella and/or VA-ECMO. Overall, adverse event rates and resource consumption were high. Given the current lack of beneficial evidence, our study reinforces the need for prospectively established, high-quality evidence to guide clinical decision-making.

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.

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.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions

Cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for most deaths in the population with AMI and continues to be associated with high short-term mortality. Several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been developed to treat CS and studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with AMI-CS. Unfortunately, none of these RCTs has demonstrated an improvement in survival with temporary MCS in AMI-CS. Potential reasons for these negative results in RCTs are numerous and reflect the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients with CS. Researchers have used observational study designs to provide insights about outcomes associated with the use of temporary MCS in AMI-CS. These observational studies have yielded conflicting results, in some cases contrary to the results of RCTs. Several limitations pertinent to both RCTs and observational analyses, mostly relating to selection bias and failure to consider unmeasured confounding variables and population heterogeneity, preclude drawing strong inferences regarding the effects of temporary MCS on survival in populations with AMI-CS. Understanding these limitations is essential to correctly interpreting the literature regarding temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and is necessary to inform the design of future studies that will potentially provide stronger evidence. Optimally matching temporary MCS devices to the needs of individual patients with AMI-CS will presumably be more successful than indiscriminate application in unselected patients. In this review, we discuss the existing literature on temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and describe the specific challenges that must be overcome to develop an improved evidence base for guiding clinical practice.

Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock

The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) procedure aids in the provision of prolonged cardiopulmonary support, whereas the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a ventricular assist device that maintains circulation by pumping blood into the aorta from the left ventricle. Blood is circulated in parallel with the heart by Impella. It draws blood straight into the aorta from the left ventricle, hence preserving the physiological flow. ECMO bypasses the left atrium and the left ventricle, and the end consequence is a non-physiological flow. In this article, we conducted a detailed analysis of various publications in the literature and examined various modalities pertaining to the use of ECMO and Impella for cardiogenic shocks, such as efficacy, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, device-related complications, and limitations. The Impella completely unloads the left ventricle, thereby significantly reducing the effort of the heart. Comparatively, ECMO only stabilizes a patient with cardiogenic shock for a short stretch of time and does not lessen the efforts of the left ventricle ("unload" it). In the acute setting, both devices reduced left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and provided adequate hemodynamic support. By comparing patients on Impella to those receiving ECMO, it was found that patients on Impella were associated with better clinical results, quicker recovery, limited complications, and reduced healthcare costs; however, there is a lack of conclusive studies performed demonstrating the reduction in long-term mortality rates. Considering the effectiveness of given modalities and taking into account the various studies described in the literature, Impella has reported better clinical outcomes although more clinical trials are needed for establishing the effectiveness of these interventional approaches in revascularization in cardiogenic shock.

Complications related to the access site after transaxillary implantation of a microaxial left ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND

Impella 5.0 and 5.5 (summarized as Impella 5+) are microaxial, catheter-based left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) that are implanted via a vascular graft sutured to the axillary artery and provide blood flow of up to 5.5 liter/min. This study aims to investigate the incidence of long-term complications following circulatory support with Impella 5+.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis of 203 consecutive adult patients treated between January 2017 and September 2021 with a surgically implanted Impella 5.0 or 5.5 via a vascular graft sutured to the axillary artery.

RESULTS

The median Impella support duration was 8 days. Of 203 patients, 78 (38.4%) died while on temporary mechanical circulatory support. Fifty-five (27.1%) were successfully weaned from Impella 5+ and 70 (34.5%) were bridged to a durable LVAD with a median follow-up time of 232 (IQR 68.5, 597) days after Impella 5+ explantation. In 119 of these patients, the Impella was explanted and the vascular graft was shortened, ligated, and pushed under the pectoralis muscle; in 6 patients early graft infection prompted complete graft removal during explantation. In addition, 13 patients (10.9%) developed a late-onset graft infection after a median of 86 days, requiring complete (n = 10) or partial (n = 2) explantation of the retained graft. In 1 patient, the graft infection was successfully treated by conservative therapy. Our analysis identified no specific risk factors for graft infections. Of the 203 patients, 5 (2.5%) developed a brachial plexus injury resulting in neurological dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

In 10.9% of patients, retaining the vascular graft was complicated by a late graft infection. Complete explantation of the graft prosthesis may decrease the infection rate, but may in turn increase the risk of brachial plexus injury. On the other hand, this method offers the possibility of bedside explantation.

Contemporary Data on the Status and Medical Management of Acute Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute heart failure (AHF) is among the leading causes for unplanned hospital admission. Despite advancements in the management of chronic heart failure, the prognosis of AHF remains poor with high in-hospital mortality and increased rates of unfavorable post-discharge outcomes. With this review, we aim to summarize current data on AHF epidemiology, focus on the different patient profiles and classifications, and discuss management, including novel therapeutic options in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is significant heterogeneity among patients admitted for AHF in their baseline characteristics, heart failure (HF) aetiology and precipitating factors leading to decompensation. A novel classification scheme based on four distinct clinical scenarios has been included in the most recent ESC guidelines, in an effort to better risk stratify patients and guide treatment. Intravenous diuretics, vasodilators, and inotropes remain the cornerstone of management in the acute phase, and expansion of use of mechanical circulatory support has been noted in recent years. Meanwhile, many treatments that have proved their value in chronic heart failure demonstrate promising results in the setting of AHF and research in this field is currently ongoing. Acute heart failure remains a major health challenge with high in-hospital mortality and unfavorable post-discharge outcomes. Admission for acute HF represents a window of opportunity for patients to initiate appropriate treatment as soon as possible after stabilization. Future studies are needed to elucidate which patients will benefit the most by available therapies and define the optimal timing for treatment implementation.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Position Statement on Vascular Access Safety for Percutaneous Devices in AMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

Impella versus extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) for cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS) is increasing. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes with the Impella device vs. ECMO in patients with CS.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for observational studies comparing Impella to ECMO in patients with CS. Risk ratios (RRs) for categorical variables and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective studies and one prospective study (Impella n=6652, ECMO n=1232) were identified. Impella use was associated with lower incidence of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88 [95% CI 0.80-0.94], p=0.0004), stroke (RR 0.30 [0.21-0.42], p<0.00001), access-site bleeding (RR 0.50 [0.37-0.69], p<0.0001), major bleeding (RR 0.56 [0.39-0.80], p=0.002), and limb ischemia (RR 0.42 [0.27-0.65], p=0.0001). Baseline lactate levels were significantly lower in the Impella group (SMD -0.52 [-0.73- -0.31], p<0.00001). There was no significant difference in mortality at 6-12 months, MCS duration, need for MCS escalation, bridge-to-LVAD or heart transplant, and renal replacement therapy use between Impella and ECMO groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CS, Impella device use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, stroke, and device-related complications than ECMO. However, patients in the ECMO group had higher baseline lactate levels.

Escalating and De-escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

Hemolysis during short-term mechanical circulatory support: from pathophysiology to diagnosis and treatment

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in heart failure therapies and percutaneous coronary interventions, survival for cardiogenic shock remains poor. Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) are increasingly used, but current evidence remains conflicting. The Impella is an example of such a device, based on a catheter mounted micro-axial continuous flow pump, that has been rapidly adopted in routine practice. An important aspect in the post implantation care is the prevention of complications. Hemolysis is one of the more frequent complications seen with this device.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we discuss the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of hemolysis in patients supported with a pVAD. A practical algorithm for rapid identification of hemolysis and the underlying cause is presented, allowing for early treatment and prevention of further complications.

EXPERT OPINION

Hemolysis remains a threat to patients supported with any mechanical circulatory support device. Prevention as well as treatment demands for sufficient knowledge about the device, the optimal position and hemodynamics. Future studies should try to clarify some of the elements that are still unclear such as optimal anticoagulation, the place of pentoxyfilline or extracorporeal removal of free hemoglobin. This could help to optimize outcomes in clinical practice as well as future studies.

Impella versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: Despite an increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), there is currently no randomised data directly comparing the use of Impella and veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Methods: Electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched in November 2021. Studies directly comparing the use of Impella (CP, 2.5 or 5.0) with VA-ECMO for AMI-CS were included. Studies examining other modalities of MCS, or other causes of cardiogenic shock, were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: No randomised trials comparing VA-ECMO to Impella in patients with AMI-CS were identified. Six cohort studies (five retrospective and one prospective) were included for systematic review. All studies, including 7093 patients, were included in meta-analysis. Five studies reported in-hospital mortality, which, when pooled, was 42.4% in the Impella group versus 50.1% in the VA-ECMO group. Impella support for AMI-CS was associated with an 11% relative risk reduction in in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.89; 95% CI 0.83–0.96, I² 0%). Of the six studies, three studies also adjusted outcome measures via propensity-score matching with reported reductions in in-hospital mortality with Impella compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.59–0.86, I² 35%). Pooled analysis of five studies with 6- or 12-month mortality data reported a 14% risk reduction with Impella over the medium-to-long-term (risk ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.76–0.97, I² 0%). Conclusions: There is no high-level evidence comparing VA-ECMO and Impella in AMI-CS. In available observation studies, MCS with Impella was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital and medium-term mortality as compared to VA-ECMO.

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite prompt revascularization, in particular, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for patients with CS related to AMI remains unacceptably high. Differently form a hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested for AMI–CS patients, based on the results of recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in the case of their early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of the current evidence on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of different types of MCS devices and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: a critical appraisal

INTRODUCTION

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encounter in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD).

AREAS COVERED

Despite prompt revascularization, in particular percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for CS related to AMI remains high. Differently from hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested in AMI-CS patients, based on the results of a recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have raised as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in case of an early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of current evidences on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of MCS devices, and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging observational experience suggested that an early implantation of MCS (prior to PCI), the performance of an extensive revascularization and the implementation of shock teams and networks are key factors for improving clinical outcomes.

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]).

Ventricular Unloading Using the ImpellaTM Device in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a leading cause of hospital death. However, the use of mechanical circulatory support has fundamentally changed CS management over the last decade and is rapidly increasing. In contrast to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as well as counterpulsation with an intraaortic balloon pump, ventricular unloading by the Impella™ device actively reduces ventricular volume as well as pressure and augments systemic blood flow at the same time. By improving myocardial oxygen supply and enhancing systemic circulation, the Impella device potentially protects myocardium, facilitates ventricular recovery and may interrupt the shock spiral. So far, the evidence supporting the use of Impella™ in CS patients derives mostly from observational studies, and there is a need for adequate randomized trials. However, the Impella™ device appears a promising technology for management of CS patients. But a profound understanding of the device, its physiologic impact and clinical application are all important when evaluating CS patients for percutaneous circulatory support. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the percutaneous assist device Impella™. Moreover, it highlights in depth the rationale for ventricular unloading in CS and describes practical aspects to optimize care for patients requiring hemodynamic support.

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.

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.

Device profile of the Impella 5.0 and 5.5 system for mechanical circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock: overview of its safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Trans-valvular micro-axial flow pumps such as Impella are increasingly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock [CS]. A number of different Impella devices are now available providing a wide range of cardiac output. Among these, the Impella 5.0 and recently introduced Impella 5.5 pumps can provides 5.55 L/min of flow, enabling complete left ventricular support with more favorable hemodynamic effects on myocardial oxygen consumption and left ventricular unloading. These devices require placement of a surgical conduit graft for endovascular delivery, but are increasingly being used in patients with CS due to acutely decompensated heart failure [ADHF], acute myocardial infarction [AMI] and after cardiac surgery as a bridge to transplant or durable ventricular assist device surgery or myocardial recovery.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the device profile and use of the Impella 5.0 and 5.5 systems in patients with CS. Specifically; we reviewed the published literature for Impella 5.0 device to summarize data regarding safety and efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 are trans-valvular micro-axial flow pumps for which the current data suggest excellent safety and efficacy profiles as approaches to provide circulatory support, myocardial unloading, and axillary placement enabling patient mobilization and rehabilitation.

ABBREVIATIONS

pMCS, Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices; CS, Cardiogenic shock; ADHF, Acute decompensated heart failure; AMI, Acute myocardial infarction; LVAD, Left ventricular assist deviceI; ABP, Intra-aortic balloon pump; VA-ECLS, Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support.

Favorable Effects of Impella on Takotsubo Syndrome Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock

Reportedly, approximately 9.9%-12.4% of patients with Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) are complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) and its prognosis remains poor even with the support of conventional mechanical circulatory assist devices including intra-aortic balloon pumping and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Impella, a novel percutaneous left ventricular assist device, provides strong circulatory support together with the unloading of the left ventricle, and it is theoretically a promising mechanical circulatory assist device for TTS. In this case study, we report four consecutive patients with TTS complicated with CS who were successfully resuscitated using the Impella support.

Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS.

Imaging for Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Heart failure is an important cause of mortality and morbidity in the world. Changes in organ allocation for solid thoracic (lung and heart) transplantation has increased the number of patients on mechanical circulatory support. Temporary mechanical support devices include devices tht support the circulation directly or indirectly such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and temporary support for right-sided failure, left-sided failure or biventricular failure. Most often, these devices are placed percutaneously and require either guidance with echocardiography, continuous radiography (fluoroscopy) or both. Furthermore, these devices need imaging in the intensive care unit to confirm continued accurate placement. This review contains the imaging views and nuances of the temporary assist devices (including ECMO) at the time of placement and the complications that can be associated with each individual device.

Propensity score-based analysis of 30-day survival in cardiogenic shock patients supported with different microaxial left ventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

Microaxial left ventricular assist devices are used increasingly for treating cardiogenic shock. We compared the short-term outcome of patients supported with different microaxial devices for cardiogenic shock. A retrospective propensity score-adjusted analysis was performed in cardiogenic shock patients treated with either the Impella CP (n = 64) or the Impella 5.0/5.5 (n = 62) at two tertiary cardiac care centers between 1/14 and 12/19.

RESULTS

Patients in the Impella CP group were significantly older (69.6 ± 10.7 vs. 58.7 ± 11.9 years, p = .001), more likely in INTERMACS profile 1 (76.6% vs. 50%, p = .003) and post-C-reactive protein (CPR) (36% vs. 13%, p = .006). The median support time was 2.0 days [0.0, 5.3] in the CP group vs. 8.5 days [4.3, 15.8] in the 5.0/5.5 group (p < .001). The unadjusted 30-day survival was significantly higher in the Impella 5.0/5.5 group (58% vs. 36%, p = .021, odds ratio [OR] for 30-day survival on Impella 5.0/5.5 was 3.68 [95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.46-9.90]], p = .0072). After adjustment, the 30-day survival was similar for both devices (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: [0.34-4.18], p = .744). Lactate levels above 8 mmol/L and preoperative CPR were associated with a significant mortality increase in both cohorts (OR: 10.7, 95% CI: [3.45-47.34], p < .001; OR: 13.2, 95% CI: [4.28-57.89], p < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Both Impella devices offer a similar effect with regard to survival in cardiogenic shock patients. Preoperative CPR or lactate levels exceeding 8 mmol/L immediately before implantation have a poor prognosis on Impella CP and Impella 5.0/5.5.

Adverse Events of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Devices-A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study

Worldwide, the left ventricular assist device Impella^® (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is increasingly implanted in patients with acute cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions. Despite its long history of use, few studies have assessed its safety and possible complications associated with its use. All patients treated with a left-sided Impella^® device at the University Hospital of Basel from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2019 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of mortality and adverse events (bleeding, acute kidney injury, and limb ischemia). Out of 281 included patients, at least one adverse event was present in 262 patients (93%). Rates of in-hospital, 90-day, and one-year mortality were 48%, 47%, and 50%, respectively. BARC type 3 bleeding (62%) and hemolysis (41.6%) were the most common complications. AKI was observed in 50% of all patients. Renal replacement therapy was required in 97 (35%) of all patients. Limb ischemia occurred in 13% of cases. Bleeding and hemolysis are common Impella^®-associated complications. Additionally, we found a high rate of AKI. A careful selection of patients receiving microaxial LV support and defining the indication for its use are essential measures to be taken for the benefits to outweigh potential complications.

Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis

Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with post-cardiac arrest CS following AMI (May 2015 to May 2020). Patients were supported either with Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS. Outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. 159 patients were included (Impella, n = 105; ECLS, n = 54). Hospital and 12-month survival rates were comparable in the Impella and the ECLS groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.3, respectively). After adjustment for baseline differences, both groups demonstrated comparable hospital and 12-month survival (p = 0.36 and p = 0.64, respectively). Impella patients had a significantly greater left ventricle ejection-fraction (LVEF) improvement at 96 h (p < 0.01 vs. p = 0.44 in ECLS) and significantly fewer device-associated complications than ECLS patients (15.2% versus 35.2%, p < 0.01 for relevant access site bleeding, 7.6% versus 20.4%, p = 0.04 for limb ischemia needing intervention). In subgroup analyses, Impella was associated with better survival in patients with lower-risk features (lactate < 8.6 mmol/L, time from collapse to return of spontaneous circulation < 28 min, vasoactive score < 46 and Horowitz index > 182). In conclusion, the use of Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS in post-cardiac arrest CS after AMI was associated with comparable adjusted hospital and 12-month survival. Impella patients had a greater LVEF improvement than ECLS patients. Device-related access-site complications occurred more frequently in patients with ECLS than Impella support.

Effect of arterial oxygen partial pressure inflection point on Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for emergency cardiac support

Background

Temporary circulatory support is a bridge between acute circulatory failure and definitive treatment or recovery. Currently, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is considered to be one of the effective circulatory support methods, although cardiac function monitoring during the treatment still needs further investigation. Inflection point of arterial oxygen partial pressure (IPPaO2) may occur at an early stage in part of patients with a good prognosis after VA-ECMO treatment, and the relationship between time of IPPaO2 (tIPPaO2) and recovery of cardiac function or prognosis remains unclear.

Methods

To investigate this relationship, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 71 patients with different conditions after treatment with VA-ECMO in the emergency center of Jiangsu Province Hospital between May 2015 and July 2020. Spearman’s correlation analysis was used for the correlation between tIPPaO₂ and quantitative data, and ROC curve for the predictive effect of tIPPaO₂ on the 28-day mortality.

Results

Thirty-five patients were admitted because of refractory cardiogenic shock (26 of 35 survived) and the remaining 36 patients due to cardiac arrest (13 of 36 survived). The overall survival rate was 54.9% (39 of 71 survived). Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II, ECMO time, tIPPaO2, continuous renal replacement therapy time, mechanical ventilation time, and bleeding complications in the survival group were lower than those in the non-survival group, with length of stay, intensive care unit stay, and platelet levels were being higher. The tIPPaO₂ was negatively correlated with ejection fraction, and the shorter tIPPaO2 resulted in a higher 28-day survival probability, higher predictive value for acute myocardial infarction and fulminant myocarditis.

Conclusions

Therefore, tIPPaO2 could be a reliable qualitative indicator of cardiac function in patients treated with VA-ECMO, which can reveal appropriate timing for adjusting VA-ECMO flow or weaning.

Trial registration

ChiCTR1900026105.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00902-5.

Mechanical unloading by miniature axial flow pumps in late cardiac allograft failure due to acute rejection

Allograft failure secondary to rejection commonly requires a multimodal treatment, ultimately including mechanical circulatory support. A few case reports have demonstrated the use of Impella-devices due to its assumed favorable safety profile in this fragile cohort. However, this treatment option does not play a role in choice of anti-rejective therapy in clinical routine up to date. We summarize our institutional experiences and literature mini-review on Impella-based treatment strategies in allograft rejection after heart transplantation. In all seven cases, three from our institution and four reported in the literature, Impella-based therapies led to hemodynamic stabilization in allograft failure secondary to rejection. Adverse events included hemolysis, non-fatal bleeding and in one patient a relevant aortic valve insufficiency occurred. All patients showed an improvement of allograft function. Two patients died in context of severe immunosuppression or late secondary organ failure. Based on the limited available data, we propose that Impella-mediated mechanical unloading represents a valuable option for hemodynamic stabilization in severe allograft failure due to rejection, enabling an initiation of causal therapy and thereby potentially representing an opportunity to prevent mortality. Furthermore, we hypothesize it might add to the traditional therapeutic approaches by facilitating recovery by decompressing the myocardium in allograft rejection.

Escalation and de-escalation of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a clinical entity that includes a wide spectrum of different scenarios. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) plays a fundamental role in the contemporary treatment of CS, and device selection is a key element in determining optimal treatment in this complex population. Cardiac support with mechanical devices should allow reduction and complete weaning from inotropes. Persistence of elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressures, pulmonary congestion, metabolic decompensation, and end-organ damage during current MCS are criteria for MCS escalation. Precise diagnosis of the underlying cause of right ventricular (RV) failure is fundamental for undertaking the correct escalation strategy. In the setting of both MCS escalation and de-escalation, it is important to select a strategy in relation to long-term perspectives (bridge-to-recovery, bridge-to-LV assist device, or bridge-to-heart transplantation). Small retrospective studies have demonstrated that the BiPella approach is feasible, reduces cardiac filling pressures and improves cardiac output across a range of causes of CS. Simultaneous LV and RV device implantation and lower RV afterload may be associated with better outcomes in biventricular CS, but prospective studies are still required.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Management and Prevention of Vascular Complications

The use of mechanical circulatory support devices has seen a dramatic rise over the last few years owing to their increased use not only in acute circulatory collapse but also their prophylactic use in high-risk procedures. These devices continue to have their overall benefits marginalized due to the relatively high rates of complications. Vascular complications are the most common and are associated with increased risk of mortality in these patients. Preventive measures at each stage of procedure, frequent monitoring and assessment to recognize early signs of deterioration are the best ways to mitigate the effects of vascular complications.

Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Settings

Despite the widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention and modern antithrombotic therapy, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains the leading cause of death in the United States and remains one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Certain high-risk patients present a challenge for diagnosis and treatment. The widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention in addition to modern antithrombotic therapy has resulted in substantial improvement in the short- and long-term prognosis following STEMI. In this review, we aim to provide a brief analysis of the state-of-the-art treatment for patients presenting with STEMI, focusing on cardiogenic shock, current treatment and controversies, cardiac arrest, and diagnosis and treatment of mechanical complications, as well as multivessel and left main-related STEMI.

Risk Scores in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Refractory Cardiogenic Shock and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Although many risk models have been tested in patients implanted by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), few scores assessed patients’ prognosis in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with refractory cardiogenic shock. We aimed at assessing the performance of risk scores, notably the prEdictioN of Cardiogenic shock OUtcome foR AMI patients salvaGed by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE) score, for predicting mortality in this particular population. This retrospective observational study included patients admitted to Tours University Hospital for STEMI with cardiogenic shock and requiring hemodynamic support by VA-ECMO. Among the fifty-one patients, the 30-day and 6-month survival rates were 63% and 56% respectively. Thirty days after VA-ECMO therapy, probabilities of mortality were 12, 17, 33, 66, 80% according to the ENCOURAGE score classes 0–12, 13–18, 19–22, 23–27, and ≥28, respectively. The ENCOURAGE score (AUC of the Receiving Operating Characteristic curve = 0.83) was significantly better compared to other risk scores. The hazard ratio for survival at 30 days for each point of the ENCOURAGE score was 1.10 (CI 95% (1.06, 1.15); p < 0.001). Decision curve analysis indicated that the ENCOURAGE score had the best clinical usefulness of the tested risk scores and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test suggested an accurate calibration. Our data suggest that the ENCOURAGE score is valid and the most relevant score to predict 30-day mortality after VA-ECMO therapy in STEMI patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. It may help decision-making teams to better select STEMI patients with shock for VA-ECMO therapy.