Impella in Transport: Physiology, Mechanics, Complications, and Transport Considerations

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock patients

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a highly complex clinical condition that requires a management strategy focused on early resolution of the underlying cause and the provision of circulatory support. In cases of refractory CS, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is employed to replace the failed cardiocirculatory system, thereby preventing the development of multiorgan failure. There are various types of MCS, and patients with CS typically require devices that are either short-term (< 15 days) or intermediate-term (15-30 days). When choosing the device the underlying cause of CS, as well as the presence or absence of concomitant conditions such as failed ventricle, respiratory failure, and the intended purpose of the support should be taken into consideration. Patients with MCS require the comprehensive care indicated in complex critically ill patients with multiorgan dysfunction, with an emphasis on device monitoring and control. Different complications may arise during support management, and its withdrawal must be protocolized.

Management of patients with impella devices or intra-aortic balloon pumps during helicopter air ambulance transport in observational data

INTRODUCTION

Placement of percutaneous ventricular support devices such as an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) or Abiomed Impella device can treat severe cardiogenic shock. Critical care transport medicine (CCTM) providers frequently manage patients supported by these devices during interfacility transfers, often using a helicopter air ambulance (HAA). An understanding of patient needs and management during transport is essential to informing crew configuration and training, and this study adds to the limited existing data on the HAA transport of this complex patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all HAA transports of patients with an IABP (n = 38) or Impella (n = 11) device at a single CCTM program from 2016 to 2020. We evaluated transport times and composite variables for the frequency of adverse events, condition changes requiring critical care evaluation, and critical care interventions.

RESULTS

In this observational cohort, patients with an Impella device more frequently had an advanced airway and at least 1 vasopressor or inotrope active prior to transport. While flight times were similar, CCTM teams remained at referring facilities longer for patients with an Impella device (99 vs 68 minutes; p = 0.0097). Compared to patients with an IABP, patients with an Impella device more frequently had a condition change requiring critical care evaluation (100% vs 42%; p = 0.0005) and more frequently received critical care interventions (100% vs 53%; p = 0.0037). Adverse events were uncommon and did not differ for patients with an Impella device compared to an IABP (27% vs 11%; p = 0.178).

CONCLUSION

Patients requiring mechanical circulatory support with IABP and Impella devices frequently require critical care management during transport. Clinicians should ensure the CCTM team has appropriate staffing, training, and resources to meet the critical care needs of these high acuity patients.

What the pediatric nurse needs to know about the Impella cardiac assist device

Background: Cardiogenic shock in children still carries a high mortality risk despite advances in medical therapy. The use of temporary mechanical circulatory supports is an accepted strategy to bridge patients with acute heart failure to recovery, decision, transplantation or destination therapy. These devices are however limited in children and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains the most commonly used device. Veno-arterial ECMO may provide adequate oxygen delivery, but it does not significantly unload the left ventricle, and this may prevent recovery. To improve the likelihood of left ventricular recovery and minimize the invasiveness of mechanical support, the Impella axial pump has been increasingly used in children with acute heart failure in the last decade. Purpose: There are still limited data describing the Impella indications, management and outcomes in children, therefore, we aimed to provide a comprehensive narrative review useful for the pediatric nurses to be adequately trained and acquire specific competencies in Impella management.

The Successful Rotor Wing Transport of 2 Patients Requiring Biventricular Impella Support: A Case Series and Review

Despite many advances in care, the mortality rate for cardiogenic shock remains high. Because the medical management of patients with cardiogenic shock is limited, many patients often require mechanical circulatory support. As such, cardiogenic shock patients requiring percutaneous ventricular support devices such as the Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) may be encountered by critical care transport crews with increasing frequency. Recently, biventricular Impella support has been described as a mechanical support strategy for biventricular failure. This case series describes the successful rotor wing transport of 2 patients with severe cardiogenic shock requiring biventricular Impella support and presents a review of Impella RP (Abiomed) and biventricular Impella support devices for the critical care transport medicine clinician.

Aeromedical Transportation of the Critically Ill Cardiac Patient: In-flight Considerations and Management

The aeromedical transportation (AMT) of critically ill cardiac patients can enable access to advanced specialized medical attention, or provide improved care for operational, psychosocial, political, or economic reasons. However, AMT is a complex undertaking necessitating extensive clinical, operational, administrative, and logistical planning to ensure that the patient receives an equivalent level of critical care monitoring and management in the air as on the ground. This paper is the second of a 2-part series. Part 1 focused on the preflight planning and preparation for critically ill cardiac patients during AMT aboard commercial platforms, while this current part aims to provide an overview of in-flight considerations for the same population.

Cardiac mechanics and reverse remodelling under mechanical support from left ventricular assist devices

In recent years, development of mechanical circulatory support devices has proved to be a new treatment modality, in addition to standard pharmacological therapy, for patients with heart failure or acutely depressed cardiac function. These include left ventricular assist devices, which mechanically unload the heart when implanted. As a result, they profoundly affect the acute cardiac mechanics, which in turn, carry long-term consequences on myocardial function and structural function. Multiple studies have shown that, when implanted, mechanical circulatory assist devices lead to reverse remodelling, a process whereby the diseased myocardium reverts to a healthier-like state. Here, we start by first providing the reader with an overview of cardiac mechanics and important hemodynamic parameters. We then introduce left ventricular assist devices and describe their mode of operation as well as their impact on the hemodynamics. Changes in cardiac mechanics caused by device implantation are then extrapolated in time, and the long-term consequences on myocardial phenotype, as well as the physiological basis for these, is investigated.

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.