In-hospital outcomes of percutaneous ventricular assist devices versus intra-aortic balloon pumps in non-ischemia related cardiogenic shock

Hemodynamic Predictors of Stabilization When Using Temporary Mechanical Support for Cardiogenic Shock from Acute on Chronic Heart Failure

Cardiogenic shock from acute on chronic heart failure is a lethal condition that frequently requires temporary mechanical circulatory support devices (tMCS) as a bridge to stabilization, durable support, or heart transplantation. However, there are limited data on methods to optimize use of tMCS in this population. We identified patients who received tMCS devices for cardiogenic shock from acute on chronic heart failure at a single center from August 2016 to July 2020. All the patients had invasive hemodynamic data before and immediately after tMCS placement. We classified patients according to whether they showed stabilization or decompensation with tMCS. We then evaluated hemodynamics pre-tMCS, post-tMCS, and the change in hemodynamics with tMCS (∆-tMCS) and assessed their relationship with clinical outcomes. Among 111 patients who received tMCS, 71 stabilized, and 40 decompensated. Post-tMCS hemodynamics were more likely than were pre-tMCS or ∆-tMCS to predict stabilization. Post-tMCS cardiac index >2.1 (area under the curve: 92.2) and cardiac power index >0.3 (area under the curve: 89.6) were the best predictors of stabilization. Patients who decompensated had increased in-hospital all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 3.06 [1.29 to 7.24], p = 0.011), cardiovascular mortality, and increased hospital and intensive care unit length of stay and were less likely to receive left ventricular assist device or heart transplant (hazard ratio 0.56 [0.36 to 0.88], p = 0.01). In conclusion, among patients with cardiogenic shock from acute on chronic heart failure who received tMCS, post-tMCS cardiac index and cardiac power index were highly predictive of stabilization. Those who decompensated had increased mortality, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay and were less likely to receive heart replacement therapy.

Use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock

AIMS

Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence-based treatment for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non-ischaemic CS treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non-ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de-novo or acute-on-chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access-site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30-day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

Outcome of patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock supported by percutaneous left ventricular assist device

Aims

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are used to haemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). One out of every two patients has a non‐ischaemic cause of CS, and these patients differ profoundly from patients with AMI‐related CS. We assessed the usefulness of pVAD support for patients with non‐ischaemic CS.

Methods and results

We analysed 106 patients with CS and Impella® support between 2015 and 2018. CS was non‐ischaemic in 36 patients and AMI‐related in 70 patients. Compared with the AMI group, those in the non‐ischaemic group were significantly younger [median age 62 (50.8, 70.8) years vs. 68 (58.0, 75.5) years, P = 0.007] and had more patients with severely reduced left ventricular function (94% vs. 79%, P = 0.035) and worse glomerular filtration rate [45 (27, 57) mL/min vs. 60 (44, 78) mL/min]. Propensity score matching yielded 31 patients with non‐ischaemic CS and 31 patients with AMI‐related CS, without a difference in baseline laboratory values or comorbidities. In both groups, pVAD support was performed along with haemodynamic stabilization, reduction of catecholamines and normalization of lactate levels. In 7 days, systolic blood pressure increased from 91 (80, 101) mmHg at baseline to 100 (100, 120) mmHg in the non‐ischaemic CS group (P = 0.001) and 89 (80, 100) mmHg at baseline to 112 (100, 128) mmHg in the AMI‐related CS group (P = 0.001). Moreover, in 7 days, the need of catecholamines (calculated as vasoactive‐inotropic score) decreased from 32.0 (11.1, 47.0) at baseline to 5.3 (0, 16.1) in the non‐ischaemic group (P = 0.001) and from 35.2 (18.11, 67.0) to zero (0, 0) in the AMI‐related CS group (P = 0.001). Lactate level decreased from 3.8 (2.8, 5.9) mmol/L at baseline to 1.0 (0.8, 2.1) mmol/L (P = 0.001) in the non‐ischaemic CS group and from 3.8 (2.6, 6.5) mmol/L to 1.2 (1.0, 2.0) mmol/L in the AMI‐related group (P = 0.001).

In the non‐ischaemic CS group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) or long‐term mechanical circulatory support. Two of these upgraded patients received heart transplantation. In the AMI group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to VA‐ECMO or long‐term mechanical circulatory support. Ninety‐day survival did not significantly differ between the groups (non‐ischaemic CS group 48.4%, AMI‐related CS group 45.2%, P = 0.799).

Conclusions

pVAD support is useful for haemodynamic stabilization of patients with non‐ischaemic CS and is valuable as a bridge to patients' recovery or long‐term left ventricular support and heart transplantation.

Managing Patients With Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The use of mechanical circulatory support for patients presenting with cardiogenic shock is rapidly increasing. Currently, there is only limited and conflicting evidence available regarding the role of the Impella (a microaxial, continuous-flow, short-term, left or right ventricular assist device) in cardiogenic shock; further randomized trials are needed. Patient selection, timing of implantation, and post-implantation management in the cardiac intensive care unit are crucial elements for success. Particular challenges at the bedside include the practical management of anticoagulation, evaluation of correct device position, and the approach to use in a patient with signs of insufficient hemodynamic support. Profound knowledge of these issues is required to enable the maximal potential of the device. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the short-term assist device and describes a practical approach to optimize care for patients supported with the device.

Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Hemodynamic Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock and Coexistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis'

BACKGROUND

Patients suffering an acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) may experience clinical deterioration with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent data suggest that percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) provide superior hemodynamic support over intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in AMICS. In patients with AF+AMICS, however, outcomes data comparing these two devices remain limited.

METHODS

Using the National Inpatient Sample datasets (2008-2014) and a propensity-score matched analysis, we compared the outcomes of AMICS+AF hospitalized patients undergoing PCI with pVAD vs. IABP support.

RESULTS

A total of 12,842 AMICS+AF patients were identified (pVAD=468, IABP=12,374). The matched groups (pVAD=443, IABP=443) were comparable in terms of mean age (70.3 ± 12.0 vs. 70.4 ± 11.0yrs, p = 0.92). The utilization of pVAD was higher in whites but lower in Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries as compared to IABP. The pVAD group demonstrated higher rates of obesity (13.6% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.006) and dyslipidemia (48.4% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.05). There was no difference in the in-hospital mortality (40.5% vs. 36.8%, p = 0.25); however, pVAD group had a lower incidence of post-procedural MI and higher incidences of stroke (7.8% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.03), hemorrhage (5.6% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.01), discharges to home health care (13.5% vs. 10.1%, p<0.001) and to other facilities (29.1% vs. 24.9%, p<0.001) as compared to IABP group. There was no difference between the groups in terms of mean length of stay or hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

All-cause inpatient mortality was similar in AMICS+AF patients undergoing PCI who were treated with either pVAD or IABP. The pVAD group, however, experienced more complications while consuming greater healthcare resources.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation With an Ultra-Low Concentration Argatroban-Based Purge Solution for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device in Patient With Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Purpose/Background: Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pVADs) require a continuous purge solution containing heparin to prevent pump thrombosis and device failure. Data regarding alternative options in patients who have suspected heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) are limited. Methods: In this report, we describe a 68-year-old white man with cardiogenic shock with an Impella CP device managed with a low concentration argatroban-based purge solution secondary to a suspected diagnosis of HIT. Results: The purge solution was initiated as argatroban in dextrose 10% at a concentration of 0.12 mg/mL and was subsequently decreased twice to 0.06 and 0.015 mg/mL based on the patient's clinical course. Conclusions: This case report describes the safe and effective use of argatroban purge solution necessary for anticoagulation although further studies are needed to confirm these findings.