Deploying Mechanical Circulatory Support Via the Axillary Artery in Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses

Impella and VA-ECMO are two possible therapeutic courses for the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aims to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analyses of a comprehensive set of clinical and socio-economic outcomes observed when using Impella or VA-ECMO with patients under CS. A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, and Web of Science databases on 21 February 2022. Nonoverlapping studies with adult patients supported for CS with Impella or VA-ECMO were searched. Study designs including RCTs, observational studies, and economic evaluations were considered. Data on patient characteristics, type of support, and outcomes were extracted. Additionally, meta-analyses were performed on the most relevant and recurring outcomes, and results shown using forest plots. A total of 102 studies were included, 57% on Impella, 43% on VA-ECMO. The most common outcomes investigated were mortality/survival, duration of support, and bleeding. Ischemic stroke was lower in patients treated with Impella compared to the VA-ECMO population, with statistically significant difference. Socio-economic outcomes including quality of life or resource use were not reported in any study. The study highlighted areas where further data collection is needed to clarify the value of complex, new technologies in the treatment of CS that will enable comparative assessments focusing both on the health impact on patient outcomes and on the financial burden for government budgets. Future studies need to fill the gap to comply with recent regulatory updates at the European and national levels.

Percutaneous Axillary Artery Puncture: An Efficient Approach for Upper Extremity Access

BACKGROUND

The aim was to analyze the anatomic feasibility of the percutaneous axillary access (PAXA) using cadaverous models and then to analyze the complications associated with PAXA during Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (F/BEVAR) procedures.

METHODS

Cadaverous models were used to analyze axillary pedicle after a PAXA on an initial anatomical investigation. A subclavian approach was performed after puncture to assess the injuries caused by the needle. Then, in an observational study, patients who underwent F/BEVAR using a PAXA between July 2019 and July 2021 were included. PAXA-related events and complications were monitored.

RESULTS

Eleven dissections were performed on cadavers. The axillary vein was injured twice (18.2%); the puncture site on the axillary artery was found on the arterial proximal part, behind the clavicle. Fifty-three patients underwent a F/BEVAR using a PAXA. The mean (SD) age of patients was 74.5 (9.7) years. Most indications for endovascular repair were para-renal aneurysms (66%). Two Proglide® closure devices served to close arterial access in all procedures. Adjunct balloon inflation was used in 19 (35.8%) patients. There were 5 (9.4%) PAXA-related events included preoperative blush in 2 (3.8%) patients, axillary artery dissection in 2 (3.8%), and 1 (1.9%) axillary artery stenosis. Five patients (9.4%) had a postoperative axillary hematoma without need for additional surgical procedure. No PAXA-related complication was found after discharge (mean [SD] 11.7 [7.4] months following surgery).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous axillary artery access was an efficient upper extremity access and associated with a low rate of PAXA-related events.

Strategies for Reducing Vascular and Bleeding Risk for Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In patients at high risk for haemodynamic instability during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), practitioners are increasingly opting for prophylactic mechanical circulatory support, such as the Impella® heart pump (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA). Though Impella-supported high-risk PCI (HRPCI) ensures haemodynamic stability during the PCI procedure, access-related complication rates have varied significantly in published studies. Reported variability in complication rates relates to many factors, including anticoagulation practices, access and closure strategy, post-procedure care and variations in event definitions. This article aims to outline optimal strategies to minimize vascular and bleeding complications during Impella-supported HRPCI based on previously identified clinical, procedural and postprocedural risk factors. Practices to reduce complications include femoral skills training, standardized protocols to optimize access, closure, anticoagulation management and post-procedural care, as well as the application of techniques and technological advances. Protocols integrating these strategies to mitigate access-related bleeding and vascular complications for Impella-supported procedures can markedly limit vascular access risk as a barrier to appropriate large-bore mechanical circulatory support use in HRPCI.

Position Statement on Vascular Access Safety for Percutaneous Devices in AMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

In the United States, the frequency of using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock is increasing. These devices require large-bore vascular access to provide left, right, or biventricular cardiac support, frequently under urgent/emergent circumstances. Significant technical and logistical variability exists in device insertion, care, and removal in the cardiac catheterization laboratory and in the cardiac intensive care unit. This variability in practice may contribute to adverse outcomes observed in centers that receive patients with cardiogenic shock, who are at higher risk for circulatory insufficiency, venous stasis, bleeding, and arterial hypoperfusion. In this position statement, we aim to: 1) describe the public health impact of bleeding and vascular complications in cardiogenic shock; 2) highlight knowledge gaps for vascular safety and provide a roadmap for a regulatory perspective necessary for advancing the field; 3) propose a minimum core set of process elements, or "vascular safety bundle"; and 4) develop a possible study design for a pragmatic trial platform to evaluate which structured approach to vascular access drives most benefit and prevents vascular and bleeding complications in practice.

Outcomes Associated With Peripheral Artery Disease in Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Mortality rates for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) remain high despite advances in revascularization strategies and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to elucidate the association between comorbid lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) and outcomes in CS and AMI.

METHODS

PAD status was defined in Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with CS and AMI from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. Primary outcomes ascertained through December 31, 2018 included in- and out-of-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, amputation, stroke, and lower extremity revascularization. Multivariable regression models with adjustment for confounders were used to estimate risk. Subgroup analyses included patients treated with MCS and those who underwent coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

Among 71,690 patients, 5.9% (N = 4,259) had PAD. Mean age was 77.8 ± 7.9 years, 58.7% were male, and 84.3% were White. Cumulative in-hospital mortality was 47.2%, with greater risk among those with PAD (56.3% vs 46.6% without PAD; adjusted OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.40-1.59). PAD patients also had greater risk of in-hospital amputation (1.6% vs 0.2%; adjusted OR: 7.0; 95% CI: 5.26-9.37) and out-of-hospital mortality (67.9% vs 40.7%; adjusted HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.67-1.90). MCS was less frequently utilized in PAD patients (21.5% vs 38.6% without PAD; P < 0.001) and was associated with higher mortality, need for lower extremity revascularization, and amputation risk. Findings were consistent in patients who underwent coronary revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients presenting with AMI and CS, PAD was associated with worse limb outcomes and survival. In addition to lower MCS utilization rates, those with PAD who received MCS had increased mortality, lower extremity revascularization, and amputation rates.

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.