Outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with TandemHeart® percutaneous ventricular assist device: Importance of support indication and definitive therapies as determinants of prognosis

Haemodynamic support with percutaneous devices in patients with cardiogenic shock: the current evidence of mechanical circulatory support

INTRODUCTION

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex life-threatening condition that results from primary cardiac dysfunction, leading to persistent hypotension and systemic hypoperfusion. Among the therapeutic options for CS are various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that have emerged as an increasingly effective hemodynamic support option. Percutaneous therapies can act as short-term mechanical circulatory assistance and can be split into intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and non-IABP percutaneous mechanical devices.

AREAS COVERED

This review will evaluate the MCS value while considering the mortality rate improvements. We also aim to outline the function of pharmacotherapies and percutaneous hemodynamic MCS devices in managing CS patients to avoid the onset of end-organ dysfunction and improve both early and late outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the complexity, acuity and high mortality associated with CS, and despite the availability and efficacy of pharmacological management, MCS is required to achieve hemodynamic stability and improve survival. Various percutaneous MCS devices are available with varying indications and clinical outcomes. The rates of early mortality and complications were found to be comparable between the four devices, yet, IABP seemed to show the most optimal clinical profile whilst ECMO demonstrated its more long-term efficacy.

Bridge to Life: Current Landscape of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Heart-Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute heart failure (HF) presents a significant mortality burden, necessitating continuous therapeutic advancements. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is crucial in managing cardiogenic shock (CS) secondary to acute HF, serving as a bridge to recovery or durable support. Currently, MCS options include the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), Impella, and Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO), each offering unique benefits and risks tailored to patient-specific factors and clinical scenarios. This review examines the clinical implications of recent advancements in temporary MCS, identifies knowledge gaps, and explores promising avenues for future research and clinical application. Understanding each device's unique attributes is crucial for their efficient implementation in various clinical scenarios, ultimately advancing towards intelligent, personalized support strategies.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review will focus on the indications of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and then analyze in detail all MCS devices available to the operator, evaluating their mechanisms of action, pros and cons, contraindications, and clinical data supporting their use.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last decade, the interventional cardiology arena has witnessed an increase in the complexity profile of the patients and lesions treated in the catheterization laboratory. Patients with significant comorbidity burden, left ventricular dysfunction, impaired hemodynamics, and/or complex coronary anatomy often cannot tolerate extensive percutaneous revascularization. Therefore, a variety of MCS devices have been developed and adopted for high-risk PCI. Despite the variety of MCS available to date, a detailed characterization of the patient requiring MCS is still lacking. A precise selection of patients who can benefit from MCS support during high-risk PCI and the choice of the most appropriate MCS device in each case are imperative to provide extensive revascularization and improve patient outcomes. Several new devices are being tested in early feasibility studies and randomized clinical trials and the experience gained in this context will allow us to provide precise answers to these questions in the coming years.

Percutaneous Transseptal Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Rescue a Failing Right Ventricle in an Animal Model

OBJECTIVE

We tested the feasibility and effectiveness of a percutaneous atrial transseptal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation strategy in a right ventricular failure (RVF) model.

METHODS

We performed 4 nonsurvival porcine experiments. Percutaneous transseptal access was achieved using a steerable introducer. For guidance, we used fluoroscopy, transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), and intracardiac echocardiography (ICE). A ProtekDuo rapid deployment cannula (LivaNova, London, UK) was advanced across the septum into the left atrium by 2 to 3 cm. Pulmonary hypertension (PH) was induced by partially clamping the pulmonary artery. ECMO flow was cycled from high (2 to 3 L/min) to low (0.2 to 0.3 L/min) over 2 to 3 hours.

RESULTS

Transseptal access using TEE and fluoroscopy was successful in 1 animal and unsuccessful in 1 animal. ICE provided optimal visualization for the remaining 2 animals. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was associated immediately and consistently with high versus low ECMO flow rate (mean difference: 29 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = 0.004) but was not restored to baseline values. RV pressure values were dynamic. Given time to equilibrate, mean RV pressure was restored to a baseline level.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous right atrium to left atrium transseptal cannulation relieved PH-RVF. MAP was restored to a viable level, and mean RV pressure was restored to a baseline level. Transseptal ECMO shows promise as a cannulation strategy to bridge patients with PH-RVF to lung transplant.

Utilization of TandemHeart in cardiogenic shock: Insights from the THEME registry

BACKGROUND

TandemHeart has been demonstrated to improve hemodynamic and metabolic complications in cardiogenic shock (CS). Contemporary outcomes have not been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcomes of the TandemHeart (LivaNova) in contemporary real-world use.

METHODS

We analyzed baseline characteristics, hemodynamic changes, and outcomes of all patients treated with TandemHeart who were enrolled in the THEME registry, a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

RESULTS

Between May 2015 and June 2019, 50 patients underwent implantation of the TandemHeart device. 22% of patients had TandemHeart implanted within 12 h, 32% within 24 h, and 52% within 48 h of CS diagnosis. Cardiac index (CI) was significantly improved 24 h after implantation (median change 1.0, interquartile range (IQR) (0.5-1.4 L/min/m² ). In survivors, there was a significant improvement in CI (1.0, IQR (0.5-2.25 L/min/m² ) and lactate clearance -2.3 (-5.0 to -0.7 mmol/L). The 30-day and 180-day survival were 74% (95% confidence interval: 60%-85%) and 66% (95% confidence interval: 51%-79%), respectively. Survival was similarly high in those in whom TandemHeart has been used as a bridge to surgery (85% 180-day survival).

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary cohort of patients presenting in CS, the use of TandemHeart is associated with a 74% 30-day survival and a 66% 180-day survival.

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

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

The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to advanced heart failure therapies or recovery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) has become central in the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock and can be used to bridge patients to durable MCS, heart transplant or recovery. This review will discuss contemporary data regarding bridging strategies utilizing tMCS.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been significant growth in tMCS use recently, driven by increased familiarity with tMCS devices, and increased experience with both implantation and management. Identifying goals of therapy at the time of therapy initiation can facilitate better outcomes. The three primary goals are bridge to recovery, bridge to heart transplantation or bridge to durable left ventricular assist device. Bridging to recovery requires adequate treatment of underlying conditions and optimization of haemodynamics. Bridging to heart transplantation has become more frequent following changes to the heart allocation policy. Despite early concerns, patients bridge with tMCS, including ventricular-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, do not appear to have worse posttransplant outcomes. When bridging to durable mechanical circulatory support, tMCS can be used to enhance end-organ dysfunction and improve perioperative outcomes. In situations in which none of these goals are attainable, palliative care plays a critical role to identify patient wishes and assist with withdrawal of care when necessary.

SUMMARY

The use of tMCS, as a bridge to recovery or heart replacement therapy in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock has grown significantly over the past decade. Multiple device choices are available and must be chosen appropriately to address the specific situation and the goals of therapy.

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.

Current Landscape of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Technology

Mechanical circulatory support devices provide hemodynamic support to patients who present with cardiogenic shock. These devices work using different mechanisms to provide univentricular or biventricular support. There is a growing body of evidence supporting use of these devices as a goal for cardiac recovery or as a bridge to definitive therapy, but definitive, well-powered studies are still needed. Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used using shock team and protocols, which can help clinicians in decision making, balancing operator and institutional experience and expertise. The aim of this article is to review commercially available mechanical circulatory support devices, their profiles and mechanisms of action, and the evidence available regarding their use.

A Pragmatic Approach to Weaning Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: A State-of-the-Art Review

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) provides short-term support to patients with or at risk of refractory cardiogenic shock. Although indications, contraindications, and complications of TMCS may guide device selection, optimal strategies for device weaning and explant remain poorly defined. Under the revised adult heart allocation policy implemented by the United Nations for Organ Sharing in October 2018, rejustification of heart transplant listing status includes demonstrating TMCS dependency with attempted device wean trials. However, standardized device-specific weaning and explant protocols have not been proposed or evaluated. This review highlights when to use percutaneous TMCS in cardiogenic shock, with a focus on weaning and explant considerations. Terminology for important concepts that guide device escalation, de-escalation, and explantation have been defined. Clinical, hemodynamic, metabolic, and imaging features have been defined, which can guide a tailored approach to TMCS weaning and explant based on the approach used at the Cleveland Clinic. A narrative review of published studies that have reported TMCS weaning protocols and survey results of member centers from CS-MCS working group centers is also provided. Future research is needed to better understand optimal timing and implementation of standardized protocols to achieve successful TMCS weaning and explant.

Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

Recent insights into pathophysiology and management of mechanical complications of myocardial infarction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mechanical complications of myocardial infarction are a group of postischemic events and include papillary muscle rupture resulting in ischemic mitral regurgitation, ventricular septal defect, left ventricle free wall rupture, pseudoaneurysm, and true aneurysm. Advances made in management strategies, such as the institution of 'Code STEMI' and percutaneous interventions, have lowered the incidence of these complications. However, their presentation is still associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Early diagnosis and appropriate management is crucial for facilitating better clinical outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the exact timing of a curative intervention is not known, emerging percutaneous and transcatheter approaches and improving mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have greatly enhanced our ability to manage and treat some of the complications postinfarct.

SUMMARY

Although the incidence of mechanical complications of myocardial infarction has decreased over the past few decades, these complications are still associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. The combination of early and accurate diagnosis and subsequent appropriate management are imperative for optimizing clinical outcomes. Although more randomized clinical trials are needed, mechanical circulatory support devices and emerging therapeutic strategies can be offered to carefully selected patients.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge to Heart Transplant or Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device

Advanced heart failure refractory to medical therapy can result in patients presenting with progressively worsening hypoperfusion and cardiogenic shock. Temporary mechanical circulatory support is often necessary as a bridge to heart transplant or durable ventricular assist devices. These devices increase cardiac output. Several options are available for left ventricular support. With the exception of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, all other devices decrease left ventricular end-diastolic pressure. The choice of device should be driven by patient needs and the treating teams comfort. Timely identification of cardiogenic shock and use of shock teams are potential strategies that can help improve survival.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. These devices provide different levels of univentricular and biventricular support, have different mechanisms of actions, and provide different physiologic effects. Institutions require expert teams to safely implant and manage these devices. This article reviews the mechanism of action, physiologic effects, and data as they relate to the utilization of these devices.

Currently Available Options for Mechanical Circulatory Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex condition with a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices were developed to support patients with CS in cases refractory to treatment with vasoactive medications. Current devices include intra-aortic balloon pumps, intravascular microaxial pumps, percutaneous LVAD, percutaneous RVAD, and VA ECMO. Data from limited observational studies and clinical trials show a clear difference in the level of hemodynamic support offered by each device. However, at this point, there are insufficient clinical trial data to guide MCS selection and, until ongoing clinical trials are completed, use of the right device for the right patient depends largely on clinical judgment.

Case series of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with rotational atherectomy under short-term mechanical circulatory support with TandemHeart in the setting of acute myocardial infarction

Background 

TandemHeart is a percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device, most commonly used to provide mechanical circulatory support during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and postcardiotomy cardiac failure. However, TandemHeart has not been applied in patients with severe heart failure due to myocardial infarction during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the need for rotational artherectomy (RA) before, so we present a first-in-man case series.

Case summary 

Three patients with severe HF[Please spell out HF, LA and MI (if necessary).] due to acute myocardial infarction revealed severely calcified lesions of the unprotected left main artery. We successfully used the TandemHeart as percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with RA.

Discussion 

We here report our experience and show that RA under TandemHeart mechanical circulatory support is feasible and safe in case of acute MI.

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock: Lifeline of Modern Day CICU

Cardiogenic shock (CS) portends an extremely high mortality of nearly 50% during index hospitalization. Prompt diagnoses of CS, its underlying etiology, and efficient implementation of treatment modalities, including mechanical circulatory support (MCS), are critical especially in light of such high predicted mortality. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides the most comprehensive cardiopulmonary support in critically ill patients and hence has seen a steady increase in its utilization over the past decade. Hence, a good understanding of VA-ECMO, its role in treatment of CS, especially when compared with other temporary MCS devices, and its complications are vital for any critical care cardiologist. Our review of VA-ECMO aims to provide the same.

Treatment of chronic heart failure in the 21st century: A new era of biomedical engineering has come

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a challenging burden on public health. Therapeutic strategies for CHF have developed rapidly in the past decades from conventional medical therapy, which mainly includes administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, to biomedical engineering methods, which include interventional engineering, such as percutaneous balloon mitral valvotomy, percutaneous coronary intervention, catheter ablation, biventricular pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and CRT-defibrillator use, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator use; mechanical engineering, such as left ventricular assistant device use, internal artery balloon counterpulsation, cardiac support device use, and total artificial heart implantation; surgical engineering, such as coronary artery bypass graft, valve replacement or repair of rheumatic or congenital heart diseases, and heart transplantation (HT); regenerate engineering, which includes gene therapy, stem cell transplantation, and tissue engineering; and rehabilitating engineering, which includes exercise training, low-salt diet, nursing, psychological interventions, health education, and external counterpulsation/enhanced external counterpulsation in the outpatient department. These biomedical engineering therapies have greatly improved the symptoms of CHF and life expectancy. To date, pharmacotherapy, which is based on evidence-based medicine, large-scale, multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trials, is still a major treatment option for CHF; the current interventional and mechanical device engineering treatment for advanced CHF is not enough owing to its individual status. In place of HT or the use of a total artificial heart, stem cell technology and gene therapy in regenerate engineering for CHF are very promising. However, each therapy has its advantages and disadvantages, and it is currently possible to select better therapeutic strategies for patients with CHF according to cost-efficacy analyses of these therapies. Taken together, we think that a new era of biomedical engineering for CHF has begun.