Transcaval access for the emergency delivery of 5.0 liters per minute mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

Electrosurgery in Structural Heart Interventions

Electrosurgery has emerged as a groundbreaking tool in the field of structural cardiac interventions, revolutionizing the approach to complex cardiac conditions. This review delves into the core principles, procedural techniques, outcomes, and potential challenges associated with various electrosurgical procedures within the realm of structural cardiology. Five key electrosurgical procedures performed in complex structural interventions are highlighted in this review. They are the Transcaval Access, BASILICA, LAMPOON, ELASTIC/ELASTA-Clip, and SESAME procedures. While these electrosurgery procedures hold promise and have demonstrated positive outcomes, their technical intricacies, patient selection criteria, and the need for further research remain important considerations. As technology continues to evolve and more data becomes available, electrosurgery is poised to continue shaping the landscape of cardiac care, offering minimally invasive alternatives, and improving patient outcomes in complex structural cardiac interventions.

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.

Unloading the Left Ventricle in Venoarterial ECMO: In Whom, When, and How?

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation provides cardiorespiratory support to patients in cardiogenic shock. This comes at the cost of increased left ventricle (LV) afterload that can be partly ascribed to retrograde aortic flow, causing LV distension, and leads to complications including cardiac thrombi, arrhythmias, and pulmonary edema. LV unloading can be achieved by using an additional circulatory support device to mitigate the adverse effects of mechanical overload that may increase the likelihood of myocardial recovery. Observational data suggest that these strategies may improve outcomes, but in whom, when, and how LV unloading should be employed is unclear; all techniques require balancing presumed benefits against known risks of device-related complications. This review summarizes the current evidence related to LV unloading with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: practical considerations for all stakeholders

Originally intended for life-saving salvage therapy, the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices has become increasingly widespread in a variety of clinical settings in the contemporary era. Their use as a short-term, prophylactic support vehicle has expanded to include procedures in the catheterization laboratory, electrophysiology suite, operating room and intensive care unit. Accordingly, MCS device design and technology continue to develop at a rapid pace. In this Review, we describe the functionality, indications, management and complications associated with temporary MCS, together with scenario-specific utilization, goal-directed development and bioengineering of future devices. We address various considerations for the use of temporary MCS devices in both prophylactic and rescue scenarios, with input from stakeholders from various cardiovascular specialties, including interventional and heart failure cardiology, electrophysiology, cardiothoracic anaesthesiology, critical care and cardiac surgery.

Transcatheter Electrosurgery: A Narrative Review

Transcatheter electrosurgery describes the ability to cut and traverse tissue, at a distance, without an open surgical field and is possible using either purpose-built or off-the-shelf devices. Tissue traversal requires focused delivery of radiofrequency energy to a guidewire tip. Initially employed to cross atretic pulmonary valves, tissue traversal has enabled transcaval aortic access, recanalization of arterial and venous occlusions, transseptal access, and many other techniques. To cut tissue, the selectively denuded inner curvature of a kinked guidewire (the Flying-V) or a single-loop snare is energized during traction. Adjunctive techniques may complement or enable contemporary transcatheter procedures, whereas myocardial slicing or excision of ectopic masses may offer definitive therapy. In this contemporary review we discuss the principles of transcatheter electrosurgery, and through exemplary clinical applications highlight the range of therapeutic options offered by this versatile family of procedures.

Transcaval Access and Closure Best Practices

Transcaval aortic access is a versatile electrosurgical technique for large-bore arterial access through the wall of the abdominal aorta from the adjoining inferior vena cava. Although counterintuitive, its relative safety derives from the recognition that interstitial hydraulic pressure exceeds venous pressure, so arterial bleeding harmlessly decompresses into the nearby caval venous hole. Transcaval access has been performed in thousands of patients for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular thoracic aneurysm repair and to avoid limb ischemia in percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Transcaval access may have value compared with transaxillary or subclavian access and with surgical transcarotid access when standard transfemoral access is not optimal. The dissemination of transcaval access and closure techniques has been hampered by the unavailability of commercially marketed devices. This state-of-the-art review details exemplary transcaval technique, patient selection, computed tomographic planning, step-by-step access and closure, management of complications, and procedural troubleshooting in special situations. These contemporary best practices can help operators gain or maintain proficiency.

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 Therapeutic Use of Impella Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review

Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) devices nowadays have been linked to cardiogenic shock (CS) due to the importance of their use as therapeutic instruments. This study aims to review pathophysiologic mechanisms of cardiogenic shock and the implementation of Impella to overcome this condition. To investigate several different types of studies and analyze the use of Impella device in cardiogenic shock and the outcomes of heart malfunctioning and determine its positive and negative impacts as a therapeutic tool in cardiac ischemia and use as a resource in critical patients, we conducted a systematic review through different databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and used the Medical Subjects Heading (MeSH) search strategy to obtain significant articles. We found 883 papers in total, and after removing duplicates, applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, and finding the most significant information, we ended up with 30 articles that were reviewed containing information about the impact of Impella device in cardiogenic shock in different locations. The study strongly concludes that Impella device in the setting of cardiogenic shock has more advantages than disadvantages in terms of outcomes and complications as a non-pharmacologic tool. Improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction and signs and symptoms of cardiogenic shock criteria were determinants. Nevertheless, complications during the implementation and use of the device were established; in this manner, the evaluation and treatment of each patient separately are imperative. Consequently, more studies on this relevant topic are needed.

Use of Electrosurgery in Interventional Cardiology

Transcatheter electrosurgery is a versatile tool that can be used to cut cardiac tissue without the need for a sternotomy, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cardioplegia. With adequate imaging and suitable anatomy, any cardiac tissue can be cut. Thus, transcatheter electrosurgery can provide bespoke therapies for complex patients who often have no other good treatment options. In this review, we will discuss the common applications for electrosurgical tissue traversal and laceration, including transcaval access, BASILICA, LAMPOON, and ELASTA-Clip, summarizing the evidence and the key technical steps for each.

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]).

Rates and impact of vascular complications in mechanical circulatory support

BACKGROUND

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are increasingly used for hemodynamic support in cardiogenic shock or high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Vascular complications remain a major source of morbidity and mortality despite technological advances with percutaneous techniques. Little is known about the rates and predictors of vascular complications with large-bore access MCS in the contemporary era.

METHODS

The study cohort was derived from National Inpatient Sample using data from 2015 to 2019 for cardiac hospitalizations with the use of: intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) Impella, and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The rates of vascular complications and in-hospital outcomes were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 221,700 hospitalizations with MCS use, the majority had only IABP (68%). The rates of vascular complications were greatest with ECMO (15.8%) when compared with IABP (3.0%) and Impella (5.6%). Among patients with vascular complications, in-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO (56.3%) when compared with IABP (26.2%) and Impella (33.8%). Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) was the strongest predictor of vascular complications, with 10 times higher odds when present (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.96, p < 0.001). In risk-adjusted models, when compared with IABP, the use of Impella (aOR: 1.73, p < 0.001), ECMO (aOR: 5.35, p < 0.001), or a combination of MCS devices (aOR: 3.47, p < 0.001) was associated with higher odds of vascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary practice, the use of MCS is associated with significant vascular complications and in-hospital mortality. Predictors of vascular complications include larger arteriotomy size, female gender, and peripheral arterial disease. Vascular access management remains essential to prevent major complications.

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.

Trends in the Outcomes of High-risk Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device-assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2008-2018

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) are frequently utilized in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) to provide hemodynamic support in patients with complex cardiovascular disease and/or multiple comorbidities who are poor candidates for surgical revascularization. Using the National Inpatient Sample we identified pVAD-assisted PCI (excluding intra-aortic balloon pump) in patients without cardiogenic shock from January 2008 to December 2018. We evaluated the trends in patient and procedural characteristics, and complication rates across the 11-year study period. A total of 26,661 pVAD-PCI was performed. From 2008 to 2018 there has was a 27-fold increase in the number of pVAD-PCIs performed annually. There has also been an increase in the proportion of procedures performed in small to medium sized hospitals. The use of atherectomy, image-guided PCI, FFR/iFR, drug-eluting stents, and multi-vessel intervention has significantly increased. Patients undergoing pVAD-PCI had a higher burden of comorbidities, without a significant difference in mortality over time. There were decreased rates of acute stroke and blood transfusions over time, while vascular complications and acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis remained mostly unchanged. In conclusion, the use of pVAD for HR-PCI has increased significantly, along with adjunctive PCI techniques such as atherectomy, intravascular imaging, and physiologic lesion assessment. With increasing use of this device, there appeared to be lower rates of peri-procedural stroke, and blood transfusions. Despite a higher burden of comorbidities, adjusted mortality remained stable over time.

The Rise of Endovascular Mechanical Circulatory Support Use for Cardiogenic Shock and High Risk Coronary Intervention: Considerations and Challenges

Introduction: Cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction and decompensated advanced heart failure remains a source of significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular mechanical circulatory support devices including intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (Impella and Tandemheart pumps), and veno-arterial extracorporeal oxygenation (VA-ECMO) are utilized for a broadening range of indications.Areas covered: This narrative review explores the specific devices, their distinctive hemodynamic profiles, and practical considerations. Furthermore, reviewed are the trials evaluating device outcomes which have generated significant controversy within the field of heart failure and shock. New applications and future directions are discussed.Expert opinion: Use of endovascular mechanical circulatory support has increased over the last decade, though evidence supporting their use is lacking. Development of large-scale prospective registries and clinical classification systems will facilitate patient enrollment and inform trial design. Furthermore, expansion of indications for these devices is revolutionizing how the field of heart failure and cardiogenic shock thinks about hemodynamic support. The ability to tailor therapy to a patient's specific hemodynamic profile appears to be the future of cardiogenic shock management.