https://www.internationaljournalofcardiology.com/article/S0167-5273(15)30186-8/pdf

Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: Collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group

Many patients with end-stage heart failure require mechanical circulatory support as a temporizing measure to enable multidisciplinary assessment for the most suitable therapeutic strategy. Impella 5.0 can be used as a bridge to decision to evaluate patients for potential recovery or bridge to next therapy (bridge to heart transplantation [BTHT] or bridge to durable left ventricular assist device or VAD [BLVAD]. Our goal was to examine single-center outcomes with the Impella 5.0 device as a bridge to next therapy (BTHT or BTLVAD). Forty patients underwent Impella 5.0 support from December 2009 to December 2015 with the intent of BTHT (n = 20) or BTLVAD (n = 20). The primary end point was survival to next therapy. Secondary end points included hemodynamic assessments and in-hospital/30-day complications. All patients were inotrope-dependent, with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (12%) and renal insufficiency (creatinine 2.0 mg/dl). Most were Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 2 (66%) with biventricular failure (65%). Thirty patients (75%) survived to next therapy, including transplant (n = 13), durable LVAD (n = 15), and recovery of native heart function (n = 2). No strokes or major bleeding events requiring surgery were observed. Acute renal dysfunction, bleeding requiring transfusion, hemolysis, device malfunction, limb ischemia occurred in 13 (33%), 11 (28%), 3 (8%), 4 (10%), and 1 (3%) patients, respectively. Survival rate to discharge and/or 30 days was 68% (27 of 40). Temporary support with the Impella 5.0 allows for an effective bridge to decision strategy for hemodynamic stabilization and multidisciplinary heart team assessment of critically ill patients with heart failure. In conclusion, many of these patients can be subsequently bridged to the next therapy with favorable outcomes.

Effectiveness and Safety of the Impella 5.0 as a Bridge to Cardiac Transplantation or Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with hemodynamic compromise and end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac etiology. In addition to vasoactive medications, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices offer the ability to support the hemodynamics and prevent acute organ failure. Despite the wide array of available MCS devices for CS, there are limited data on the complications from these devices. In this review, we seek to summarize the complications of MCS devices in the contemporary era. Using a systems-based approach, this review covers domains of hematological, neurological, vascular, infectious, mechanical, and miscellaneous complications. These data are intended to provide a balanced narrative and aid in risk–benefit decision-making in this acutely ill population.

/pdf/complications-of-temporary-percutaneous-mechanical-5e7we3tmaa.pdf

Complications of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: An Appraisal of Contemporary Literature.

Cardiogenic shock refractory to standard therapy with inotropes and/or intra-aortic balloon pump is accompanied with an unacceptable high mortality. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices may provide a survival benefit for these very sick patients. In this study, we describe our experience with the Impella 5.0 device used in the setting of refractory cardiogenic shock. In this observational, retrospective, single-center study we included all the consecutive patients supported with Impella 5.0, between May 2008 and December 2013, for refractory cardiogenic shock. Patients’ baseline and procedural characteristics, hemodynamics and outcome to the first 48 h of support, to ICU discharge and day-28 visit were collected. A total of 40 patients were included in the study. Median age was 57 years and 87.5 % were male. Cardiogenic shock resulted from acute myocardial infarction in 17 patients (43 %), dilated cardiomyopathy in 12 (30 %) and postcardiotomy cardiac failure in 7 (18 %). In 15 patients Impella 5.0 was added to an ECMO to unload the left ventricle. The median SOFA score for the entire cohort prior to circulatory support was 12 [10–14] and the duration of Impella support was 7 [5–10] days. We observed a significant decrease of the inotrope score (10 [1–17] vs. 1 [0–9]; p = 0.04) and the lactate values (3.8 [1.7–5.9] mmol/L vs. 2.5 [1.5–3.4] mmol/L; p = 0.01) after 6 h of support with Impella 5.0. Furthermore, at Impella removal the patients’ left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly (p < 0.001) when compared to baseline. Cardiac recovery, bridge to left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation was possible in 28 patients (70 %). Twenty-six patients (65 %) survived at day 28. A multivariate analysis showed a higher risk of mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction (hazard ratio = 4.1 (1.2–14.2); p = 0.02). Impella 5.0 allowed fast weaning of inotropes and might facilitate myocardial recovery. Despite high severity scores at admission, day-28 mortality rate was better than predicated.

/pdf/management-and-outcome-of-patients-supported-with-impella-5-3zf5erefk6.pdf

Management and outcome of patients supported with Impella 5.0 for refractory cardiogenic shock

American Association for Thoracic Surgery/International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines on selected topics in mechanical circulatory support

http://lib.ajaums.ac.ir/booklist/1-s2.0-S0003497513016640-main.pdf

Leonard Y. Lee

Papers

The Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock.