Impella versus IABP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

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.

Mechanical assist devices for acute cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac disorder. For people with refractory CS despite maximal vasopressors, inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump, mortality approaches 100%. Mechanical assist devices provide mechanical circulatory support (MCS) which has the ability to maintain vital organ perfusion, to unload the failing ventricle thus reduce intracardiac filling pressures which reduces pulmonary congestion, myocardial wall stress and myocardial oxygen consumption. This has been hypothesised to allow time for myocardial recovery (bridge to recovery) or allow time to come to a decision as to whether the person is a candidate for a longer-term ventricular assist device (VAD) either as a bridge to heart transplantation or as a destination therapy with a long-term VAD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether mechanical assist devices improve survival in people with acute cardiogenic shock.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collection in November 2019. In addition, we searched three trials registers in August 2019. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on people with acute CS comparing mechanical assist devices with best current intensive care management, including intra-aortic balloon pump and inotropic support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed data collection and analysis according to the published protocol. Primary outcomes were survival to discharge, 30 days, 1 year and secondary outcomes included, quality of life, major adverse cardiovascular events (30 days/end of follow-up), dialysis-dependent (30 days/end of follow-up), length of hospital stay and length of intensive care unit stay and major adverse events. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the quality of a body of evidence as it relates to the studies which contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified five studies from 4534 original citations reviewed. Two studies included acute CS of all causes randomised to treatment using TandemHeart percutaneous VAD and three studies included people with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction who were randomised to Impella CP or best medical management. Meta-analysis was performed only to assess the 30-day survival as there were insufficient data to perform any further meta-analyses. The results from the five studies with 162 participants showed mechanical assist devices may have little or no effect on 30-day survival (RR of 1.01 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35) but the evidence is very uncertain. Complications such as sepsis, thromboembolic phenomena, bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events were not infrequent in both the MAD and control group across the studies, but these could not be pooled due to inconsistencies in adverse event definitions and reporting. We identified four randomised control trials assessing mechanical assist devices in acute CS that are currently ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from this review of a benefit from MCS in improving survival for people with acute CS. Further use of the technology, risk stratification and optimising the use protocols have been highlighted as potential reasons for lack of benefit and are being addressed in the current ongoing clinical trials.

Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock

Objectives

To describe the contemporary trends in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). To evaluate survival benefit with early application of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella CP.

Methods

A cohort study of all consecutive patients with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) <24 hours of symptom onset (early PCI) in southeastern Denmark from 2010 to 2017. A matched case–control study comparing 30-day mortality between patients receiving early-IABP or early-Impella CP and their respective control group. Controls were matched on age, left ventricular ejection fraction, arterial lactate, estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac arrest before PCI. Early-IABP/Impella CP was defined as applied before PCI if shock developed pre-PCI, or immediately after PCI if shock developed during PCI.

Results

903 patients with AMICS undergoing early PCI were identified. Use of MCS decreased from 50% in 2010 to 25% in 2017, p for trend of <0.001. The IABP was abandoned in 2012 and replaced mostly by Impella CP. Patients receiving MCS in 2013–2017 had more compromised haemodynamics compared with patients receiving MCS in 2010–2012. 40 patients received early IABP, and 40 patients received early Impella CP. Only the group receiving early Impella CP was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with their matched control group (30-day mortality 40% vs 77.5%, plog-rank of<0.001).

Conclusion

Use of MCS decreased by 50% from 2010 to 2017. Patients receiving MCS had more compromised haemodynamics in recent years. Early application of Impella CP was associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with a matched control group.

Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

IMPORTANCE

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide greater hemodynamic support as compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), little is known about clinical outcomes associated with intravascular microaxial LVAD use in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To examine outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A propensity-matched registry-based retrospective cohort study of patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, who were included in data from hospitals participating in the CathPCI and the Chest Pain-MI registries, both part of the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients receiving an intravascular microaxial LVAD were matched with those receiving IABP on demographics, clinical history, presentation, infarct location, coronary anatomy, and clinical laboratory data, with final follow-up through December 31, 2017.

EXPOSURES

Hemodynamic support, categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD use only, IABP only, other (such as use of a percutaneous extracorporeal ventricular assist system, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a combination of MCS device use), or medical therapy only.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital major bleeding.

RESULTS

Among 28 304 patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (12.6) years, 67.0% were men, 81.3% had an ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 43.3% had cardiac arrest. Over the study period among patients with AMI, an intravascular microaxial LVAD was used in 6.2% of patients, and IABP was used in 29.9%. Among 1680 propensity-matched pairs, there was a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death associated with use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage points {95% CI, 7.6-14.2}; P < .001) and also higher risk of in-hospital major bleeding (intravascular microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage points [95% CI, 12.5-18.2]; P < .001). These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients received a device before or after initiation of PCI.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock from 2015 to 2017, use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD compared with IABP was associated with higher adjusted risk of in-hospital death and major bleeding complications, although study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Further research may be needed to understand optimal device choice for these patients.

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock remains a complex clinical syndrome with high morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this article is to review important landmark trials as well as the relevant recent literature for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support following acute myocardial infarction.

RECENT FINDINGS

The sole use of intraaortic balloon pumps for cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction continues to be questioned with downgrading of its recommendation in recent years, there however may remain a role in patients with mechanical complications of their myocardial infarction. The combined use of extracorporeal circulatory support and a ventricular unloading device appears to be promising with increasing data supporting this strategy.

SUMMARY

Given the complex and heterogeneous nature of cardiogenic shock there remains somewhat limited robust data to guide clinical practice. Ongoing research is needed to help guide improvements in patient outcomes.

Impella-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting for acute myocardial infarction

We report two cases of Impella-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. The first case involved coronary artery bypass grafting and mitral valve replacement, and the second involved off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Emergent Impella-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting was successfully performed in both cases. Our findings highlight the ability of Impella percutaneous left ventricular assist device to provide excellent hemodynamic support during the entire perioperative period.