Mechanical circulatory support with impella to facilitate percutaneous coronary intervention for post-TAVI bilateral coronary obstruction

Mechanical Circulatory Support in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The use of mechanical circulatory devices to support high-risk elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become more common as the group of patients considered inoperable or high risk for surgical revascularization has grown. Most of the data examining outcomes in high-risk PCI are observational and retrospective. Limited prospective randomized studies have been unable to show improved clinical outcomes with routine mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with a high burden of coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. The role for MCS in high-risk PCI continues to evolve as understanding of the appropriate groups for this therapy evolves.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a challenging syndrome, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although pharmacological therapies are successful and can successfully control this acute cardiac illness, some patients remain refractory to drugs. Therefore, a more aggressive treatment strategy is needed. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) can be used to stabilise patients with decompensated heart failure. In the last two decades, the increased use of TCS has led to several kinds of devices becoming available. However, indications for TCS and device selection are part of a complex process. It is necessary to evaluate the severity of CS, any early and prompt haemodynamic resuscitation, prior TCS, specific patient risk factors, technical limitations and adequacy of resources and training, as well as an assessment of whether care would be futile. This article examines options for commonly used TCS devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps, a pulsatile percutaneous ventricular assist device (the iVAC), veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation and Impella (Abiomed) and TandemHeart (LivaNova) percutaneous ventricular assist device.

Advanced Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart.

STUDY SELECTION

Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

Utilization of the Impella for hemodynamic support during percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock: an insight

INTRODUCTION

Impella is a catheter-based micro-axial flow pump placed across the aortic valve, and it is currently the only percutaneous left ventricular assist device approved for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiogenic shock. Areas Covered: Even though several studies have repeatedly demonstrated the excellent hemodynamic profile of Impella in high-risk settings, it remains underutilized. Here we aim to provide an up-to-date summary of the available literature on Impellas use in High risk settings as well as the practical aspects of its usage. Expert Commentary: Percutaneous coronary interventions in high rsk settings have always been challenging for a physician. Impella 2.5 and CP, have been proven safe, cost effective and feasible in High Risk Percutaneous coronary Interventions with an excellent hemodynamic profile.

Staged High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Impella Support after On-Pump Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

The management of concomitant obstructive coronary artery disease and severe aortic stenosis in poor surgical candidates is an evolving topic. Although the typical current practice is to perform percutaneous revascularization before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), some data have emerged regarding revascularization after performing TAVR. We present the case of a 90-year-old man with multivessel coronary artery disease who was at prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. We first performed TAVR with use of hemodynamic support, then Impella-assisted multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention on the patient's unprotected left main coronary artery. We describe this complex case and review the medical literature on percutaneous coronary intervention after TAVR.