Outcomes of patients with right ventricular failure requiring short-term hemodynamic support with the Impella RP device

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.

Impact of Right Ventricular Dysfunction on Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) complicates 30%-40% of cases in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). There are sparse data on the effects of RVD on outcomes and the impact of providing early left ventricular (LV) mechanical circulatory support (MCS) on RV function and hemodynamics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between July 2016 and December 2020, 80 sites participated in the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMI-CS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of LV-MCS. RVD was defined as a right atrial (RA) pressure of >12 mm Hg and a pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPI) of <1 within 24 hours of the index procedure. The primary outcome was survival to discharge. In a subgroup analysis, data available from the Automated Impella Controller console was used to analyze diastolic suction alarms from LV placement signal and its relation to RVD. A total of 361 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 28% had RVD. The median age was 64 years (interquartile range 55-72 years), 22.7% were female and 75.7% were White. There was no difference in age, sex, or comorbidities between those with or without RVD. Patients with RVD had a higher probability of active CPR during LV-MCS implant (14.7% vs 6.3%), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stage E shock (39.2% vs 23.2%), and higher admission lactate levels (5.1 mg/dL vs 3.0 mg/dL). Survival to discharge was significantly lower among those with RVD (61.8% vs 73.4%, odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.95, P = .031). This association remained significant in the multivariate analysis. There was no significant difference in hemodynamic variables within 24 hours of LV-MCS support among those with or without RVD. At 24 hours, patients with a CPO of >0.6 W and a PAPi of >1 had a trend toward better survival to discharge compared with those with a CPO of ≤0.6 W and a PAPi of ≤1 (77.1% vs 54.6%, P = .092). Patients with RVD were significantly more likely to have diastolic suction alarms within 24 hours of LV-MCS initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

RVD in AMI-CS is common and associated with worse survival to discharge. Early LV-MCS decreases filling pressures rapidly within the first 24 hours and decreases the rate of RVD. Achieving a CPO of >0.6 W and a PAPi of >1 within 24 hours is associated with high survival. Diastolic suction alarms may have usefulness as an early marker of RVD.

Preemptive temporary right ventricular assist device implantation for severe biventricular heart failure: A case series

PURPOSE

We sought to investigate the clinical results of preemptive temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) placement with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation for anticipated right ventricular failure.

METHODS

Patients at risk for right ventricular failure were identified by the heart team. After median sternotomy, Protekduo (LivaNova, London, UK) dual-stage cannula was inserted from the right internal jugular vein under fluoroscopy guidance, and advanced into the pulmonary artery to the bifurcation of the main pulmonary artery. This was then connected to the venous drainage from the right atrium for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). After LVAD implantation, we connected the Protekduo cannula to the RVAD with oxygenator, and weaned CPB.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients have received BiVAD implantation with this technique. The median age of patients was 55 years [Interquartile range (IQR): 51-63.5] and 94% (16/17) patients were male. 63.6% (7/11) of the patients were INTERMACS profile 1 or 2. Preoperatively, the median pulmonary artery pulsatility index was 4.0 [1.5-4.9] and median right ventricular stroke work index was 454.1 g/m/beat/m2 [436.5-530.2]. Postoperatively, the oxygenators were removed on median postoperative day (POD) 3.5 [3 - 5]. Patients received mechanical ventilation for a median of 4 days [1.5-12] and RVADs were explanted on median POD 8 [7-19] at bedside with local anesthesia. Median ICU stay was 15 days [11.4-24]. Perioperative complications included delayed sternal closure [54.5% (6/11)], re-exploration for bleeding [18% (2/11)], acute kidney injury [36% (4/11)], and heparin induced thrombocytopenia [18% (2/11)]. 30-day mortality was 0% (0/11) and 1 year survival was 85.9%.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive temporary RVAD implantation strategy for right heart failure post-LVAD showed acceptable clinical outcomes without any 30-day mortality.

Outcomes in peripheral right ventricular device support: Comparing the dual lumen, single canula and femoral vein cannulation strategies for right ventricular support

INTRODUCTION

The Protek Duo (PtD) dual lumen, single cannula was developed as a percutaneous system for temporary mechanical support, inserted through the internal jugular vein (IJ) for both atrial inflow and pulmonary artery outflow. Outcomes of PtD compared to alternative Peripheral Right Ventricular Assist Device (pRVAD) methods are limited.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of pRVAD recipients from January 2017 - February 2022 (n = 111). These were classified into PtD (n = 52) patients and Non-Protek [(N-PtD) (n = 59)] recipients undergoing cannulation of the IJ and femoral vein. Results were further stratified by indication for pRVAD support: cardiogenic etiologies of heart failure and progressive ARDS.

RESULTS

No survival benefit was detected between PtD and N-PtD groups at 1-week (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.49-3.56, p = 0.58) or 6-month (OR: 9.83, 95% CI: 0.37-1.84, p = 0.64) follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in whether patients' mobility progressed to out-of-bed activity (p = 0.26) or ambulation (p = 0.38). No differences were noted in time to out-of-bed (p = 0.26) or time to ambulation (p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis of patients by indication for pRVAD cannulation, these results persisted; no difference was noted in mid-term mortality (Cardiogenic: p = 0.39; ARDS: p = 0.91), progression to out-of-bed (p = 0.59; p = 1.00), or ambulation (p = 0.51; p-0.68). Among secondary outcomes, PtD patients had an increased dialysis requirement (p = 0.02). There were no differences in ability to wean from RVAD (p = 0.06), tracheostomy (p = 0.88), major bleeding events (p = 0.57), stroke (p = 0.58), or hospital length of stay (p = 0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes with PtD are comparable to those of traditional pRVAD cannulation strategies. Of note, no mobility benefit was observed to the use of PtD across several metrics.

Hemodynamical Evaluation of a New Surgically Implanted Pulsatile Right Ventricular Assist Device Driven by a Conventional Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Console

Severe right heart failure, often overlooked and challenging to manage, has prompted a growing interest in innovative approaches to provide functional support. This study uses experimentation in large porcine models to introduce a novel prototype of a pulsatile mechanical circulatory support device and document its effects when deployed as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD). The pulsatile ventricular assist platform (pVAP), featuring a membrane pump driven by an intra-aortic balloon pump console, actively generates pulsatile flow to propel right ventricular blood into the pulmonary artery. This novel prototype demonstrates promising potential in addressing the challenges of right heart failure management. After preliminary in vitro assessments, the pVAP was tested on seven porcine models in a healthy state and after the induction of right ventricular failure. During the procedure, a set of standard ( ie , standard-of-care) hemodynamic measurements was obtained. Additionally, invasive pressure-volume loop analysis was employed to examine left ventricular hemodynamics. Results indicated that activation of the pVAP during right ventricular failure significantly improved systemic hemodynamics and enhanced left ventricular function. This study sheds light on the potential of the pVAP in managing right heart failure.

Pathophysiology, diagnosis and management of right ventricular failure: A state of the art review of mechanical support devices

The function of the right ventricle (RV) is to drive the forward flow of blood to the pulmonary system for oxygenation before returning to the left ventricle. Due to the thin myocardium of the RV, its function is easily affected by decreased preload, contractile motion abnormalities, or increased afterload. While various etiologies can lead to changes in RV structure and function, sudden changes in RV afterload can cause acute RV failure which is associated with high mortality. Early detection and diagnosis of RV failure is imperative for guiding initial medical management. Echocardiographic findings of reduced tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (<1.7) and RV wall motion (RV S' <10 cm/s) are quantitatively supportive of RV systolic dysfunction. Medical management commonly involves utilizing diuretics or fluids to optimize RV preload, while correcting the underlying insult to RV function. When medical management alone is insufficient, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be necessary. However, the utility of MCS for isolated RV failure remains poorly understood. This review outlines the differences in flow rates, effects on hemodynamics, and advantages/disadvantages of MCS devices such as intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, centrifugal-flow right ventricular assist devices, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and includes a detailed review of the latest clinical trials and studies analyzing the effects of MCS devices in acute RV failure.

Impella RP Flex: Rescue for the Failing Right Ventricle After Heart Transplantation-Case Report

Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (RVD) after orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Impella RP Flex was recently approved for RV support as a temporary mechanical circulatory device. We present the first case of its use in managing RVD in a patient after OHT. Here, a 40 year old male patient with familial dilated cardiomyopathy and factor V Leiden mutation presented with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) stage B cardiogenic shock. Hemodynamics at admission were indicative of need for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support. Hemodynamics improved and patient underwent OHT. Postoperative day (POD) 1, IABP support was changed to 1:2 and eventually removed. Hemodynamics deteriorated quickly, requiring pharmacologic RV support and diuresis, but refractory RV failure persisted. Impella RP Flex was chosen due to the patient's small size and was placed via the right internal jugular vein on POD 12. The procedure was well tolerated, with the patient ambulatory the following day (POD 13). Impella was removed on POD 25 after 13 days of support. Patient achieved normal kidney, intrinsic rhythm improved sinus rhythm, and ultimately discharged on POD 50. Impella RP flex has emerged as a promising future indication as single or biventricular support postcardiac transplantation.

The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogenous syndrome broadly characterized by inadequate cardiac output leading to tissue hypoperfusion and multisystem organ dysfunction that carries an ongoing high mortality burden. The management of CS has advanced rapidly, especially with the incorporation of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. A thorough understanding of how to approach a patient with CS and to select appropriate monitoring and treatment paradigms is essential in modern ICUs. Timely characterization of CS severity and hemodynamics is necessary to optimize outcomes, and this may be performed best by multidisciplinary shock-focused teams. In this article, we provide a review of CS aimed to inform both the cardiology-trained and non-cardiology-trained intensivist provider. We briefly describe the causes, pathophysiologic features, diagnosis, and severity staging of CS, focusing on gathering key information that is necessary for making management decisions. We go on to provide a more detailed review of CS management principles and practical applications, with a focus on tMCS. Medical management focuses on appropriate medication therapy to optimize perfusion-by enhancing contractility and minimizing afterload-and to facilitate decongestion. For more severe CS, or for patients with decompensating hemodynamic status despite medical therapy, initiation of the appropriate tMCS increasingly is common. We discuss the most common devices currently used for patients with CS-phenotyping patients as having left ventricular failure, right ventricular failure, or biventricular failure-and highlight key available data and particular points of consideration that inform tMCS device selection. Finally, we highlight core components of sedation and respiratory failure management for patients with CS.

Diagnosis and Management of Vasoplegia in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Narrative Review

Refractory vasodilatory shock, or vasoplegia, is a pathophysiologic state observed in the intensive care unit and operating room in patients with a variety of primary diagnoses. Definitions of vasoplegia vary by source but are qualitatively defined clinically as a normal or high cardiac index and low systemic vascular resistance causing hypotension despite high-dose vasopressors in the setting of euvolemia. This definition can be difficult to apply to patients undergoing mechanical circulatory support (MCS). A large body of mostly retrospective literature exists on vasoplegia in the non-MCS population, but the increased use of temporary MCS justifies an examination of vasoplegia in this population. MCS, particularly extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, adds complexity to the diagnosis and management of vasoplegia due to challenges in determining cardiac output (or total blood flow), lack of clarity on appropriate dosing of noncatecholamine interventions, increased thrombosis risk, the difficulty in determining the endpoints of adequate volume resuscitation, and the unclear effects of rescue agents (methylene blue, hydroxocobalamin, and angiotensin II) on MCS device monitoring and function. Care teams must combine data from invasive and noninvasive sources to diagnose vasoplegia in this population. In this narrative review, the available literature is surveyed to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of vasoplegia in the temporary MCS population, with a focus on noncatecholamine treatments and special considerations for patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, transvalvular heart pumps, and other ventricular assist devices.

Right Ventricular Myocardial Infarction-A Tale of Two Ventricles: JACC Focus Seminar 1/5

Right ventricular infarction (RVI) complicates 50% of cases of acute inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and is associated with high in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Ischemic right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction decreases left ventricular preload delivery, resulting in low-output hypotension with clear lungs, and disproportionate right heart failure. RV systolic performance is generated by left ventricular contractile contributions mediated by the septum. Augmented right atrial contraction optimizes RV performance, whereas very proximal occlusions induce right atrial ischemia exacerbating hemodynamic compromise. RVI is associated with vagal mediated bradyarrhythmias, both during acute occlusion and abruptly with reperfusion. The ischemic dilated RV is also prone to malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Nevertheless, RV is remarkably resistant to infarction. Reperfusion facilitates RV recovery, even after prolonged occlusion and in patients with severe shock. However, in some cases hemodynamic compromise persists, necessitating pharmacological and mechanical circulatory support with dedicated RV assist devices as a "bridge to recovery."

Use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support for right ventricular failure

BACKGROUND

Utilization of right ventricular mechanical circulatory support (RV-MCS) devices has been limited by a lack of recognition of RV failure as well as a lack of availability and experience with RV-MCS.

AIMS

We report a single-center experience with the use of percutaneous RV-MCS and report predictors of adverse outcomes.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Data from consecutive patients who received RV-MCS for any indication between June 2015 and January 2022 were included. Data on baseline comorbidities, hemodynamics, and laboratory values were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality analyzed as a logistic outcome in a multivariable model. These variables were further ranked by their predictive value.

RESULTS

Among 58 consecutive patients enrolled, the median age was 66 years, 31% were female and 53% were white. The majority of the patients (48%) were hospitalized for acute on chronic heart failure. The majority of the patients were SCAI SHOCK Stage D (67%) and 34 (64%) patients had MCS placed within 24 h of the onset of shock. Before placement of RV-MCS, median central venous pressure (CVP) and RV stroke work index were 20 mmHg and 8.9 g m/m2, respectively. Median serum lactate was 3.5 (1.6, 6.2) mmol/L. Impella RP was implanted in 50% and ProtekDuo in the remaining 50%. Left ventricular MCS was concomitantly used in 66% of patients. Twenty-eight patients (48.3%) died. In these patients, median serum lactate was significantly higher (4.1 [2.3, 13.0] vs. 2.2 [1.4, 4.0]  mmol/L, p = 0.007) and a trend toward higher median CVP (24 [18, 31] vs. 19 [14, 24] mmHg, p = 0.052). In the multivariable logistic model, both serum lactate and CVP before RV-MCS placement were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Serum lactate had the highest predictive value.

CONCLUSION

In our real-world cohort, 52% of patients treated with RV-MCS survived their index hospitalization. Serum lactate at presentation and CVP were the strongest predictors of in-hospital mortality.

Outcome of right ventricular microaxial pump support in patients undergoing cardiac surgery

Right ventricular failure (RVF) after cardiac surgery is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of up to 75%. Microaxial flow pumps are one of the mechanical circulatory supports (MCS) options available for the treatment of RVF, however the specifics of timing and indication for MCS, as well as predictors for survival, remain unclear due to a dearth of published data. We evaluated the clinical outcome of patients treated with Impella-RP for predictors of mortality and the hemodynamic effects of the pump. This is a single-center retrospective observational study involving adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between January 2019 and December 2020 in cardiac surgery and required therapeutic management of RVF with an Impella-RP. Overall, 18 patients were included and analyzed for factors that could be associated with mortality, or that could be predictors of patient outcomes for this population. Treatment of RVF with Impella-RP improved the patient hemodynamics significantly and had a survival rate of 61% within 30 days. Patients with isolated CABG or better liver function before implantation had a better survival rate, which may indicate that underlying disease and timing of implantation are significant for successful treatment of RVF.

Waitlist and transplant outcomes in heart transplant candidates bridged with temporary endovascular right ventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND

Advances in mechanical circulatory support and changes in allocation policy have shifted waitlisting practices for heart transplantation (HT) in the United States. This analysis reports waitlist and transplant outcomes among HT candidates bridged with temporary endovascular right ventricular assist devices (tRVADs).

METHODS

Patients awaiting HT from 2008 to 2022 in the United Network of Organ Sharing registry were grouped by the presence of tRVAD while waitlisted and propensity matched. Waitlist outcomes were HT and a competing outcome of death/deterioration requiring waitlist inactivation. Competing-risks regression was used to model waitlist outcomes. Subanalyses were performed to compare waitlist outcomes among patients with durable and temporary left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) with and without concomitant tRVADs. One-year posttransplant mortality was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Of 41,507 HT candidates, 133 (0.3%) had tRVADs. After propensity matching, patients with tRVAD had a similar likelihood of HT and an elevated hazard for death/deterioration (hazard ratio 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.4-3.2, p < 0.001) compared to those without tRVAD. Most patients with tRVAD (84%) had concomitant LVADs. tRVAD was associated with an elevated risk for deterioration/death among those with temporary LVADs but not durable LVADs. For patients undergoing HT, tRVAD was associated with an increased risk for 1-year mortality compared to propensity-matched recipients.

CONCLUSIONS

Bridging with tRVAD is uncommon and primarily used in patients requiring biventricular support. tRVADs are associated with waitlist inactivation or death, particularly with concomitant temporary LVAD support. As temporary devices are increasingly used as a bridge to HT, outcomes of patients with tRVADs should inform future allocation policy, particularly for candidates with biventricular failure.

Advanced Heart Failure: Therapeutic Options and Challenges in the Evolving Field of Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Heart Failure is a chronic and progressively deteriorating syndrome that has reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Improved outcomes have been achieved with novel drugs and devices. However, the number of patients refractory to conventional medical therapy is growing. These advanced heart failure patients suffer from severe symptoms and frequent hospitalizations and have a dismal prognosis, with a significant socioeconomic burden in health care systems. Patients in this group may be eligible for advanced heart failure therapies, including heart transplantation and chronic mechanical circulatory support with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Heart transplantation remains the treatment of choice for eligible candidates, but the number of transplants worldwide has reached a plateau and is limited by the shortage of donor organs and prolonged wait times. Therefore, LVADs have emerged as an effective and durable form of therapy, and they are currently being used as a bridge to heart transplant, destination lifetime therapy, and cardiac recovery in selected patients. Although this field is evolving rapidly, LVADs are not free of complications, making appropriate patient selection and management by experienced centers imperative for successful therapy. Here, we review current LVAD technology, indications for durable MCS therapy, and strategies for timely referral to advanced heart failure centers before irreversible end-organ abnormalities.

Medical and Mechanical Circulatory Support of the Failing Right Ventricle

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe medical therapies and mechanical circulatory support devices used in the treatment of acute right ventricular failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Experts have proposed several algorithms providing a stepwise approach to medical optimization of acute right ventricular failure including tailored volume administration, ideal vasopressor selection to support coronary perfusion, inotropes to restore contractility, and pulmonary vasodilators to improve afterload. Studies have investigated various percutaneous and surgically implanted right ventricular assist devices in several clinical settings. The initial management of acute right ventricular failure is often guided by invasive hemodynamic data tracking parameters of circulatory function with the use of pharmacologic therapies. Percutaneous microaxial and centrifugal extracorporeal pumps bypass the failing RV and support circulatory function in severe cases of right ventricular failure.

Use of a Percutaneous Right Ventricular Assist Device to Manage Right Ventricular Failure in Inferior STEMIs

Acute right heart failure is a complication of inferior ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. Given the further hemodynamic instability that results from right-sided failure, a treatment option is needed to help bridge toward cardiac recovery. We present a case of using a right ventricular assist device in a patient who had marked improvement in cardiac function after an instance of acute right heart failure.

The importance of timing in postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A descriptive multicenter observational study

OBJECTIVES

Postcardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be initiated intraoperatively or postoperatively based on indications, settings, patient profile, and conditions. The topic of implantation timing only recently gained attention from the clinical community. We compare patient characteristics as well as in-hospital and long-term survival between intraoperative and postoperative ECMO.

METHODS

The retrospective, multicenter, observational Postcardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Support (PELS-1) study includes adults who required ECMO due to postcardiotomy shock between 2000 and 2020. We compared patients who received ECMO in the operating theater (intraoperative) with those in the intensive care unit (postoperative) on in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes.

RESULTS

We studied 2003 patients (women: 41.1%; median age: 65 years; interquartile range [IQR], 55.0-72.0). Intraoperative ECMO patients (n = 1287) compared with postoperative ECMO patients (n = 716) had worse preoperative risk profiles. Cardiogenic shock (45.3%), right ventricular failure (15.9%), and cardiac arrest (14.3%) were the main indications for postoperative ECMO initiation, with cannulation occurring after (median) 1 day (IQR, 1-3 days). Compared with intraoperative application, patients who received postoperative ECMO showed more complications, cardiac reoperations (intraoperative: 19.7%; postoperative: 24.8%, P = .011), percutaneous coronary interventions (intraoperative: 1.8%; postoperative: 3.6%, P = .026), and had greater in-hospital mortality (intraoperative: 57.5%; postoperative: 64.5%, P = .002). Among hospital survivors, ECMO duration was shorter after intraoperative ECMO (median, 104; IQR, 67.8-164.2 hours) compared with postoperative ECMO (median, 139.7; IQR, 95.8-192 hours, P < .001), whereas postdischarge long-term survival was similar between the 2 groups (P = .86).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative and postoperative ECMO implantations are associated with different patient characteristics and outcomes, with greater complications and in-hospital mortality after postoperative ECMO. Strategies to identify the optimal location and timing of postcardiotomy ECMO in relation to specific patient characteristics are warranted to optimize in-hospital outcomes.

Extracorporeal Life Support in Pulmonary Hypertension: Practical Aspects

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS), in particular veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, has emerged as a potentially life-saving treatment modality in patients presenting with pulmonary hypertension and right heart failure refractory to conventional treatment. Used mainly as a bridge to lung transplantation, ECLS is also being used occasionally as a bridge to recovery in patients with treatable causes of right heart failure. This review article describes indications, contraindications, techniques, and outcomes of the use of ECLS in patients with PH, focusing on practical aspects in the management of such patients.

Impella RP Use in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock in a Patient Presenting With Acute Right Coronary Artery Occlusion: A Case Report

It is common for patients with inferior myocardial infarction to experience right ventricular infarction, occurring in half of the patients with inferior myocardial infarction. Right ventricular failure due to acute right myocardial infarction is often associated with a worse prognosis. In this case, we report a patient with acute chest pain due to acute right coronary artery occlusion status post placement of multiple stents in the right coronary artery. Unfortunately, he developed refractory cardiogenic shock requiring biventricular assist device placement.

CT and chest radiography in evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices for acute heart failure

Acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients who have had recent cardiac surgery, myocardial infarct or pulmonary hypertension. The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices before organ failure occurs can improve outcomes in these patients. Imaging plays a key role in identifying appropriate positioning of MCS devices for supporting ventricle function. These devices can be used for left ventricle, right ventricle or biventricular support. Fluoroscopy, angiography and echocardiography are used for implanting these devices. Radiographs and CT can identify both intra- and extra-cardiac complications. The cardiothoracic imager will see increasing use of these devices and familiarity with their normal appearance and complications is important. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Chest radiographs and CT are useful for assessing the position of the mechanical cardiac support device used for treatment of acute heart failure. CT can identify cardiac and extra-cardiac complications associated with these devices. KEY POINTS: IABP upper/distal marker should be 2-3 cm distal to the ostia of the left subclavian artery. Inlet of Impella CP should be 3.5 cm below the aortic valve. The Impella 5.5 does not have a pigtail portion. The inlet should be about 5 cm below the aortic annulus. Impella RP inlet port should be in the right atrium or inferior vena cava, the pigtail portion should be positioned in the main pulmonary artery. Protek Duo inflow is in the right atrium or right ventricle. The outflow is in the main pulmonary artery.

Impella devices: a comprehensive review of their development, use, and impact on cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION

Impella devices have emerged as a critical tool for temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The purpose of this review is to examine the history of the different Impella devices, their hemodynamic profiles, and how the data supports their use.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the development and specifications of the Impella 2.5, Impella CP, Impella 5.0/Left Direct (LD), Impella RP, and Impella 5.5 devices. This review also covers the clinical trials that illuminate the Impella devices' use in their appropriate clinical contexts. These studies examine the effectiveness of Impella devices and have begun to yield promising results, demonstrating improved survival rates when compared to the historically high mortality rates associated with CS. It is important to weigh the benefits of Impella devices in light of their contraindications. A literature search was conducted by searching the PubMed database for reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials pertinent to Impella devices.

EXPERT OPINION

Impella devices are a crucial tool for management of patients undergoing high-risk PCI and those with CS. There is evidence that early Impella implantation is beneficial in the treatment of patients presenting with CS. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to better elucidate the benefits of Impella devices in various clinical settings.

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.

Update on Mechanical Circulatory Support

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide temporary or intermediate- to long-term support for acute cardiopulmonary support. In the last 20 to 30 years, tremendous growth in MCS device usage has been seen. These devices offer support for isolated respiratory failure, isolated cardiac failure, or both. Initiation of MCS devices requires the input from multidisciplinary teams using patient factors and institutional resources to guide decision making, along with a planned "exit strategy" for bridge to decision, bridge to transplant, bridge to recovery, or as destination therapy. Important considerations for MCS use include patient selection, cannulation/insertion strategies, and complications of each device.

Temporary Right Ventricular Assist Device Support for Acute Right Heart Failure: A Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Severe right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although right ventricular assist devices (RVADs) are increasingly used for refractory RV failure, there is limited data on their short- and long-term outcomes. Therefore, we undertook this study to better understand our experience with temporary RVADs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of all RVADS performed from 2017 to 2021. Patients supported with surgical RVADs, the Protek Duo device, and the Impella RP device were included. Patients were stratified by the type of RVAD and by etiology of RV failure. Survival was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2021, 42 patients underwent RVAD implantation: 32 with a Protek Duo, 6 with an Impella RP, and 4 with a surgical RVAD. Majority of patients were already supported with an alternate form of mechanical support. Most patients had impaired renal function, decreased hepatic function, and lactic acidosis at the time of cannulation. The median duration of RVAD support was 8.5 [5-19] d. Survival to decannulation was 68.4%, to discharge was 47.4%, and to 1-y was 40.2%. Multivariable analysis identified elevated total bilirubin levels to be associated with 30-d mortality while increased hemoglobin levels were protective. After RVAD cannulation, the median number of pressors and inotropes was lower (P < 0.01) and the lactic acidosis was less (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, RVAD support is associated with lower lactate levels, and decreased number of vasoactive medications, but is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

Biventricular assist devices and total artificial heart: Strategies and outcomes

In contrast to the advanced development of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy for advanced heart failure, the mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with biventricular assist device (BVAD) and total artificial heart (TAH) options remain challenging. The treatment strategy of BVAD and TAH therapy largely depends on the support duration. For example, an extracorporeal centrifugal pump, typically referred to as a temporary surgical extracorporeal right ventricular assist device, is implanted for the short term with acute right ventricular failure following LVAD implantation. Meanwhile, off-label use of a durable implantable LVAD is a strategy for long-term right ventricular support. Hence, this review focuses on the current treatment strategies and clinical outcomes based on each ventricle support duration. In addition, the issue of heart failure post-heart transplantation (post-HT) is explored. We will discuss MCS therapy options for post-HT recipients.

Supporting the "forgotten" ventricle: The evolution of percutaneous RVADs

Right heart failure (RHF) can occur as the result of an acute or chronic disease process and is a challenging clinical condition for surgeons and interventionalists to treat. RHF occurs in approximately 0.1% of patients after cardiac surgery, in 2-3% of patients following heart transplantation, and in up to 42% of patients after LVAD implantation. Regardless of the cause, RHF portends high morbidity and mortality and is associated with longer hospital stays and higher healthcare costs. The mainstays of traditional therapy for severe RHF have included pharmacological support, such as inotropes and vasopressors, and surgical right ventricular (RV) assist devices. However, in recent years catheter-based mechanical circulatory support (MCS) strategies have offered novel solutions for addressing RHF without the morbidity of open surgery. This manuscript will review the pathophysiology of RHF, including the molecular underpinnings, gross structural mechanisms, and hemodynamic consequences. The evolution of techniques for supporting the right ventricle will be explored, with a focus on various institutional experiences with percutaneous ventricular assist devices.

The ProtekDuo dual-lumen cannula for temporary acute mechanical circulatory support in right heart failure: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Acute right ventricular failure (aRVF) is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be considered as an advanced treatment option. The ProtekDuo is a cannula that can be used to provide acute right ventricular support as part of a temporary percutaneous (tp) right ventricular assist device (RVAD) system. The primary objective of this systematic review is to describe patient survival and complications when the ProtekDuo cannula was used as part of an tpRVAD system.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from database inception to August 26, 2022. Reference sections of studies were reviewed to screen for database omissions.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 127 patients were eligible for inclusion. The studies included patients with aRVF from a variety of causes. Mean duration of support was between 10 and 58 days in five studies. Patient survival to discharge was between 60% and 85.2% in two studies. Four authors reported 30-day survival between 60% and 85.2%. Devicerelated and non-device related complications were low.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with RVAD using the ProtekDuo cannula have comparable survival rates and complications to other tpRVAD systems. Several advantages exist compared to other RVAD systems.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: Left, Right, and Biventricular Devices

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) encompasses a wide array of invasive devices, which provide short-term hemodynamic support for multiple clinical indications. Although initially developed for the management of cardiogenic shock, indications for MCS have expanded to include prophylactic insertion prior to high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment of acute circulatory failure following cardiac surgery, and bridging of end-stage heart failure patients to more definitive therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplantation. A wide variety of devices are available to provide left ventricular, right ventricular, or biventricular support. The choice of a temporary MCS device requires consideration of the clinical scenario, patient characteristics, institution protocols, and provider familiarity and training. In this review, the most common forms of left, right, and biventricular temporary MCS are discussed, along with their indications, contraindications, complications, cannulations, hemodynamic effects, and available clinical data.

Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common across the heart failure population. Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a feared complication that can occur in the early post-operative phase or during the outpatient follow-up. Multiple tools are available to the clinician to carefully estimate the individual risk of developing RVF after LVAD implantation. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of available tools for RVF prognostication, including patient-specific and right ventricle (RV)-specific echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, to provide guidance in patient selection during LVAD candidacy. We also offer a multidisciplinary approach to the management of early RVF, including indications and management of right ventricular assist devices in this setting to provide tools that help managing the failing RV.

Right-Sided Mechanical Circulatory Support - A Hemodynamic Perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Right ventricular (RV) failure is increasingly recognized as a major cause of morbidity and mortality. When RV failure is refractory to medical therapy, escalation to right-sided mechanical circulatory support (MCS) should be considered. In this review, we begin by recapitulating the hemodynamics of RV failure, then we delve into current and future right-sided MCS devices and describe their hemodynamic profiles.

RECENT FINDINGS

The field of temporary right-sided MCS continues to expand, with evolving strategies and new devices actively under development. All right-sided MCS devices bypass the RV, with each bypass configuration conferring a unique hemodynamic profile. Devices that aspirate blood directly from the RV, as opposed to the RA or the IVC, have more favorable hemodynamics and more effective RV unloading. There has been a growing interest in single-access MCS devices which do not restrict patient mobility. Additionally, a first-of-its-kind percutaneous, pulsatile, right-sided MCS device (PERKAT RV) is currently undergoing investigation in humans. Prompt recognition of refractory RV failure and deployment of right-sided MCS can improve outcomes. The field of right-sided MCS is rapidly evolving, with ongoing efforts dedicated towards developing novel temporary devices that are single access, allow for patient mobility, and directly unload the RV, as well as more durable devices.

Mechanical circulatory support devices and treatment strategies for right heart failure

The importance of right heart failure (RHF) treatment is magnified over the years due to the increased risk of mortality. Additionally, the multifactorial origin and pathophysiological mechanisms of RHF render this clinical condition and the choices for appropriate therapeutic target strategies remain to be complex. The recent change in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation criteria of heart transplant may have impacted for the number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), but LVADs still have been widely used to treat advanced heart failure, and 4.1 to 7.4% of LVAD patients require a right ventricular assist device (RVAD). In addition, patients admitted with primary left ventricular failure often need right ventricular support. Thus, there is unmet need for temporary or long-term support RVAD implantation exists. In RHF treatment with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, the timing of the intervention and prediction of duration of the support play a major role in successful treatment and outcomes. In this review, we attempt to describe the prevalence and pathophysiological mechanisms of RHF origin, and provide an overview of existing treatment options, strategy and device choices for MCS treatment for RHF.

Impella RP for Patients with Acute Right Ventricular Failure and Cardiogenic Shock: A Subanalysis from the IMP-IT Registry

The use of percutaneous right ventricular assist devices (pRVADs) to support patients with right ventricular (RV)-predominant cardiogenic shock (CS) refractory to optimal medical therapy is increasing progressively, and the Impella RP is the first FDA-approved pRVAD in such a clinical scenario. The aim of the present study is to report the outcomes of patients treated with Impella RP in the IMP-IT (IMPella Mechanical Circulatory Support Device in Italy) registry, a multicenter registry that evaluated the trends in use and clinical outcomes of the Impella in the setting of CS and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in Italy. A total of 15 patients who received Impella RP were enrolled. In 40% of the patients, the main cause was ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A total of 40% of patients required biventricular support with a left Impella. Device-related complications were reported in 46.7% of patients. Overall, the in-hospital mortality was 46.7%, whereas the one-year mortality was 53.3%. The composite rate of all-cause death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and heart transplant at one year was 60%. The Impella RP has favorable survival outcomes in RV-predominant cardiogenic shock. However, the device-related complications are frequent and should be carefully weighed when considering escalation to Impella RP.

Characterization and Development of Universal Ventricular Assist Device: Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Advanced Design

We are developing a universal, advanced ventricular assist device (AVAD) with automatic pressure regulation suitable for both left and right ventricular support. The primary goal of this computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study was to analyze the biventricular performance of the AVAD across its wide range of operating conditions. An AVAD CFD model was created and validated using in vitro hydraulic performance measurements taken over conditions spanning both left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and right ventricular assist device (RVAD) operation. Static pressure taps, placed throughout the pump, were used to validate the CFD results. The CFD model was then used to assess the change in hydraulic performance with varying rotor axial positions and identify potential design improvements. The hydraulic performance was simulated and measured at rotor speeds from 2,300 to 3,600 revolutions/min and flow rates from 2.0 to 8.0 L/min. The CFD-predicted hydraulic pressure rise agreed well with the in vitro measured data, within 6.5% at 2300 rpm and within 3.5% for the higher rotor speeds. The CFD successfully predicted wall static pressures, matching experimental values within 7%. High degree of similarity and circumferential uniformity in the pump's flow fields were observed over the pump operation as an LVAD and an RVAD. A secondary impeller axial clearance reduction resulted in a 10% decrease in peak flow residence time and lower static pressures on the secondary impeller. These lower static pressures suggest a reduction in the upwards rotor forces from the secondary impeller and a desired increase in the pressure sensitivity of the pump. The CFD analyses supported the feasibility of the proposed AVAD's use as an LVAD or an RVAD, over a wide range of operating conditions. The CFD results demonstrated the operability of the pump in providing the desired circumferential flow similarity over the intended range of flow/speed conditions and the intended functionality of the AVAD's automated pressure regulation.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Right Ventricular Failure

Right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality rates estimated as high as 70–75%. RV failure may occur following cardiac surgery in conjunction with left ventricular failure, or may be isolated in certain circumstances, such as inferior MI with RV infarction, pulmonary embolism or following left ventricular assist device placement. Medical management includes volume optimisation and inotropic and vasopressor support, and a subset of patients may benefit from mechanical circulatory support for persistent RV failure. Increasingly, percutaneous and surgical mechanical support devices are being used for RV failure. Devices for isolated RV support include percutaneous options, such as micro-axial flow pumps and extracorporeal centrifugal flow RV assist devices, surgically implanted RV assist devices and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, the authors discuss the indications, candidate selection, strategies and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for RV failure.

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]).

Percutaneous repositioning of Impella RP: the Snare–Manoeuvre–Prolapse technique—a case report

Background

Impella RP (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is indicated for right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device insertion or biventricular shock. Once the peel-away sheath is removed, Impella RP repositioning can only be achieved with manual manipulation of the catheter itself. This method does not always accomplish appropriate positioning of the catheter and can result in continued haemodynamic instability.

Case summary

A young male presented to our institution with recurrent ventricular fibrillation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction that underwent emergent coronary intervention but was in progressive cardiogenic shock requiring implantation of Impella 5.0 and Impella RP. After insertion of the right ventricular support, the patient stabilized transiently then became unstable once more, and repeat fluoroscopy demonstrated that the Impella RP had ‘fallen back’ into the right ventricle. Due to continued instability, we improvised a previously undescribed method of repositioning of the Impella RP catheter with the use of a goose-neck snare.

Discussion

The snare–manoeuvre–prolapse method of Impella RP repositioning is a relatively novel approach at the management of Impella RP retrograde migration into the right ventricle and prevents the need for large-bore venous closure and re-access and the use of a new Impella RP catheter while providing rapid improvement of haemodynamics.

Ventricular Unloading Using the ImpellaTM Device in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a leading cause of hospital death. However, the use of mechanical circulatory support has fundamentally changed CS management over the last decade and is rapidly increasing. In contrast to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as well as counterpulsation with an intraaortic balloon pump, ventricular unloading by the Impella™ device actively reduces ventricular volume as well as pressure and augments systemic blood flow at the same time. By improving myocardial oxygen supply and enhancing systemic circulation, the Impella device potentially protects myocardium, facilitates ventricular recovery and may interrupt the shock spiral. So far, the evidence supporting the use of Impella™ in CS patients derives mostly from observational studies, and there is a need for adequate randomized trials. However, the Impella™ device appears a promising technology for management of CS patients. But a profound understanding of the device, its physiologic impact and clinical application are all important when evaluating CS patients for percutaneous circulatory support. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the percutaneous assist device Impella™. Moreover, it highlights in depth the rationale for ventricular unloading in CS and describes practical aspects to optimize care for patients requiring hemodynamic support.

Comprehensive evaluation of Impella RP® in right ventricular failure

Right ventricular failure has a high morbidity and mortality in patients suffering from advanced heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, acute myocardial infarction after cardiac surgery and in left ventricular assist device patients. The Impella RP^® catheter is a mechanical circulatory device, positioned from a venous femoral percutaneous access and passing through the tricuspid and pulmonary valves, reaches the pulmonary artery. Impella RP (Abiomed Inc., MA, USA) acts as a direct right ventricle bypass and it provides a flow up to 4.4 liters per minute, unloading the right ventricle. The main contraindications are: thrombi in the vena cava, right atrium and ventricle and pulmonary artery; mechanical tricuspid or pulmonary prostheses. In this review, the principles of operations, clinical applications and results of Impella RP are summarized and evaluated.

Perioperative Management of Patients Receiving Short-term Mechanical Circulatory Support with the Transvalvular Heart Pump

Use of the transvalvular heart pump to provide short-term circulatory support in the perioperative setting is growing. The considerations for the perioperative management of patients receiving transvalvular heart pump support are reviewed for the anesthesiologist.

Temporary Right-Ventricular Assist Devices: A Systematic Review

Acute right-sided heart failure (RHF) is a complex clinical syndrome, with a wide range of clinical presentations, associated with increased mortality and morbidity, but about which there is a scarcity of evidence-based literature. A temporary right-ventricular assist device (t-RVAD) is a potential treatment option for selected patients with severe right-ventricular dysfunction as a bridge-to-recovery or as a permanent solution. We sought to conduct a systematic review to determine the safety and efficacy of t-RVAD implantation. Thirty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, from which data were extracted. Successful t-RVAD weaning ranged between 23% and 100%. Moreover, 30-day survival post-temporary RAVD implantation ranged from 46% to 100%. Bleeding, acute kidney injury, stroke, and device malfunction were the most commonly reported complications. Notwithstanding this, t-RVAD is a lifesaving option for patients with severe RHF, but the evidence stems from small non-randomized heterogeneous studies utilizing a variety of devices. Both the etiology of RHF and time of intervention might play a major role in determining the t-RVAD outcome. Standardized endpoints definitions, design and methodology for t-RVAD trials is needed. Furthermore, efforts should continue in improving the technology as well as improving the timely provision of a t-RVAD.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) represents one of the foremost concerns in the field of acute cardiovascular medicine. Despite major advances in treatment, mortality of CS remains high. International societies recommend the development of expert CS centers with standardized protocols for CS diagnosis and treatment. In these terms, devices for temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be used to support the compromised circulation and could improve clinical outcome in selected patient populations presenting with CS. In the past years, we have witnessed an immense increase in the utilization of MCS devices to improve the clinical problem of low cardiac output. Although some treatment guidelines include the use of temporary MCS up to now no large randomized controlled trial confirmed a reduction in mortality in CS patients after MCS and additional research evidence is necessary to fully comprehend the clinical value of MCS in CS. In this article, we provide an overview of the most important diagnostic and therapeutic modalities in CS with the main focus on contemporary MCS devices, current state of art and scientific evidence for its clinical application and outline directions of future research efforts.

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.