High-risk PCI in acute coronary syndromes with Impella LP 2.5 device support

High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Native Coronary Arteries Without Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome Without Cardiogenic Shock

Widespread utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial, with a lack of randomized supporting evidence and associated risk of device-related complications. We investigated whether high-risk PCI of native coronary arteries without elective MCS in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is safe and feasible. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis for ACS patients meeting American College of Cardiology high-risk criteria: unprotected left main disease, last remaining conduit, ejection fraction <35%, 3-vessel coronary artery disease, severe aortic stenosis, or severe mitral regurgitation. Patients with cardiogenic shock and those undergoing PCI of the bypass grafts were excluded. Major in-hospital and 30-day cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. From 2003 through 2018, 499 patients (847 lesions) with unstable angina pectoris (UAP), 1218 patients (1807 lesions) with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and 868 patients (1260 lesions) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) underwent high-risk PCI. Procedural success was achieved in 97.2% of UAP, 98.3% of NSTEMI, and 96.6% of STEMI patients. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were as follows: UAP, 2%; NSTEMI, 2.1%; and STEMI 4.7%. Bailout intra-aortic balloon pump was required in 1.6% of UAP, 3.1% of NSTEMI, and 10.3% of STEMI patients. Major complications for UAP, NSTEMI, and STEMI were, respectively: target lesion revascularization (2.3%, 1.4%, and 1.5%), stroke or transient ischemic attack (0.8%, 0.6%, and 1.3%), acute renal failure (8.2%, 7.2%, and 10.2%), major bleeding (1.6%, 3.1%, and 8.5%). In conclusion, our results show that high-risk PCI without elective MCS is safe and feasible in most ACS patients, challenging professional societies' current recommendations. A randomized trial comparing unprotected versus protected high-risk PCI for non-shock ACS patients is warranted.

Incidence and impact of acute kidney injury on patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices: a Meta-analysis

Background: We aimed to evaluate the acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence and its associated risk of mortality in patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).Methods: A systematic literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases was conducted through January 2020 to identify studies that provided data on the AKI incidence and AKI-associated mortality risk in adult patients with implantable LVADs. Pooled effect estimates were examined using random-effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian-Laird.Results: Fifty-six cohort studies with 63,663 LVAD patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of reported AKI was 24.9% (95%CI: 20.1%-30.4%) but rose to 36.9% (95%CI: 31.1%-43.1%) when applying the standard definition of AKI per RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria. The pooled incidence of severe AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) was 12.6% (95%CI: 10.5%-15.0%). AKI incidence did not differ significantly between types of LVAD (p = .35) or indication for LVAD use (p = .62). While meta-regression analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between study year and overall AKI incidence (p = .55), the study year was negatively correlated with the incidence of severe AKI requiring RRT (slope = -0.068, p < .001). The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of mortality at 30 days and one year in AKI patients were 3.66 (95% CI, 2.00-6.70) and 2.22 (95% CI, 1.62-3.04), respectively. The pooled ORs of mortality at 30 days and one year in severe AKI patients requiring RRT were 7.52 (95% CI, 4.58-12.33) and 5.41 (95% CI, 3.63-8.06), respectively.Conclusion: We found that more than one-third of LVAD patients develop AKI based on standard definitions, and 13% develop severe AKI requiring RRT. There has been a potential improvement in the incidence of severe AKI requiring RRT for LVAD patients. AKI in LVAD patients was associated with increased 30-day and 1 year mortality.

A Review of Bleeding Risk with Impella-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Collapse

Access site complications following Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are increasingly used to provide hemodynamic stability for patients with severe coronary artery disease, comorbidities, and/or impaired hemodynamics during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Vascular access site complications, particularly those due to the use of large-bore sheaths, may limit outcomes in these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and predictors of vascular complications in protected high-risk PCIs. Therefore, we included patients undergoing high-risk PCI with an Impella device from January 2016 to August 2018. Vascular complications were graded according to 'Valve Academic Research Consortium-2', a definition routinely used in transcatheter valve implantation procedures. In total, 61 patients (mean age 72 ± 11 years, 79% male, SYNTAX score 33 ± 7) were included, and angiographic- and fluoroscopic-guided vascular access was used for Impella implantation in all patients. Major vascular complications occurred in 5 male patients (8%). All major vascular complications were treated conservatively without the need for surgical intervention, and only one patient received a transfusion of three erythrocyte concentrates. Regression analysis revealed that patients with peripheral arterial disease of the lower extremities are at higher risk of major vascular complications. In conclusion, the utilization of Impella using a standardized protocol for angiographic- and fluoroscopic-guided vascular access was associated with a low rate of vascular complications.

The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have examined the effectiveness and safety of the Impella device, a percutaneous left ventricular assist device, in the setting of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, data are sparse and results are conflicting. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Impella device in high-risk patients undergoing PCI via a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs and observational studies that evaluated the Impella device in high-risk patients undergoing PCI. Inclusion was restricted to studies in which ≥10 patients received the Impella device; both uncontrolled and controlled (versus intra-aortic-balloon pump [IABP]) studies were included.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies (4 RCTs, 2 controlled observational studies, and 14 uncontrolled observational studies; 1,287 patients) were included, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 42 months. The use of Impella resulted in improved procedural and hemodynamic characteristics in controlled and uncontrolled studies. In controlled studies, the 30-day rates of all-cause mortality and MACE were similar across groups. In most uncontrolled studies, the 30-day rates of all-cause mortality were generally low (range: 3.7%-10%), though rates of MACE were slightly higher (range: 5%-20%).

CONCLUSION

The Impella device was found to improve procedural and hemodynamic parameters, but only limited randomized data are available regarding clinical outcomes associated with its use. Large, multicenter RCTs are needed to definitively establish the effectiveness of the Impella device among high-risk PCI patients.

Meta-Analysis of Usefulness of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Devices for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is often offered to patients with extensive coronary artery disease, decreased left ventricular function, and co-morbid conditions that increase surgical risk. In these settings, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PVADs) can be used for hemodynamic support. To assess the effects of PVAD use on mortality, myocardial infarction, and complication rates in patients undergoing high-risk PCI, we systematically searched the electronic databases, MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane for prospective controlled trials and cohort studies of patients that received hemodynamic support with PVADs for high-risk PCI. The primary outcome measures were 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day myocardial infarction rates, periprocedural major bleeding, and vascular complications. We included 12 studies with 1,346 participants who underwent Impella 2.5 L device placement and 8 cohort studies with 205 patients that received TandemHeart device for high-risk PCI. Short-term mortality rates were 3.5% and 8% and major bleeding rates were 7.1% and 3.6% with Impella and TandemHeart, respectively. Both devices are associated with comparable periprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk PCI.

Cannulation strategies for percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has revolutionized treatment of severe isolated or combined failure of lung and heart. Due to remarkable technical development the frequency of use is growing fast, with increasing adoption by interventional cardiologists independent of cardiac surgery. Nevertheless, ECMO support harbors substantial risk such as bleeding, thromboembolic events and infection. Percutaneous ECMO circuits usually comprise cannulation of two large vessels ('dual' cannulation), either veno-venous for respiratory and veno-arterial for circulatory support. Recently experienced centers apply more advanced strategies by cannulation of three large vessels ('triple' cannulation), resulting in veno-veno-arterial or veno-arterio-venous cannulation. While the former intends to improve drainage and unloading, the latter represents a very potent method to provide circulatory and respiratory support at the same time. As such triple cannulation expands the field of application at the expense of increased complexity of ECMO systems. Here, we review percutaneous dual and triple cannulation strategies for different clinical scenarios of the critically ill. As there is no unifying terminology to date, we propose a nomenclature which uses "A" and all following letters for supplying cannulas and all letters before "A" for draining cannulas. This general and unequivocal code covers both dual and triple ECMO cannulation strategies (VV, VA, VVA, VAV). Notwithstanding the technical evolution, current knowledge of ECMO support is mainly based on observational experience and mostly retrospective studies. Prospective controlled trials are urgently needed to generate evidence on safety and efficacy of ECMO support in different clinical settings.

Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support (Impella) in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and/or Cardiogenic Shock Not Eligible to PROTECT II Trial

PROTECT I and II trials have tested the efficacy of Impella in patents with high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, patients with severe hemodynamic instability such as cardiac arrest, ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), or cardiogenic shock were excluded. The objective was to investigate the efficacy of Impella in sicker patient population who were not included in PROTECT trials. These patients merit high-risk PCI who had cardiogenic shock and unstable or decompensated heart failure (HF). From December 2010 to March 2012, 10 consecutive patients with extremely high surgical risk and hemodynamic instability underwent urgent PCI with Impella 2.5 support (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA). These patients were presented with advance HF and/or cardiogenic shock. Among the 10 included patients, 3 patients were with cardiac arrest and 1 patient was with acute myocardial infarction. All patients had successful Impella implantation and remained hemodynamically stable during high-risk PCI. Among the 10 patients 2 patients (20%) died within 1 month and 1 patient developed limb ischemia. In high-risk population nonrandomizable to PROTECT trials with advance HF/cardiogenic shock, Impella could be an important tool for hemodynamic support to PCI or could be a bridge to left ventricle assist device to achieve good recovery. Larger studies need to be conducted on this high-risk population.

Economic and Operational Implications of a Standardized Approach to Hemodynamic Support Therapy Using Percutaneous Cardiac Assist Devices

Objective

Impella 2.5 has been shown to reduce major adverse events for patients undergoing elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed a single-center retrospective study to compare the costs and resource use of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support.

Methods

All high-risk patients who received Impella 2.5 (n = 35) and IABP (n = 295) support from December 2008 to July 2011 were included. Propensity score matching identified a balanced 1:1 matched cohort (35 Impella vs 35 IABP) based on indications for implantation, preimplantation hemodynamics, and age. Diagnostic, procedural, financial, and resource use data were collected.

Results

As compared with IABP, Impella offered a more predictable course of treatment/resource consumption and was not associated with any extreme cost outliers (17.1% vs 0.0%, respectively; P = 0.025). The mean admission and 90-day episode of care total costs for Impella were 5.5% ($67,681 vs $71,608, P = 0.79) and 4.2% ($70,680 vs $73,476, P = 0.85) lesser than that for IABP, respectively. Although not statistically significant, Impella patients had a trend toward lower rehospitalization rates (11.4% vs 20%), lesser mean index length of hospital stay (11.2 vs 13.7), and 90-day (11.7 vs 14.2) episode of care length of hospital stay.

Conclusions

Impella support was associated with consistent course of treatment/resource consumption with significantly fewer 90-day extreme cost outliers than was IABP. The lower index and 90-day follow-up cost trends observed for Impella were driven by shorter length of hospital stay and fewer rehospitalizations. As providers strive to improve quality of care by reducing variability, these findings have implications for the development of hemodynamic support algorithms.

Comparison of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: vascular complications and incidence of bleeding

OBJECTIVE

Compare vascular complications and incidence of bleeding of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Large arterial sheath size for device insertion is associated with vascular and/or bleeding complications; gastrointestinal bleeding may also occur with anti-coagulation use.

METHODS

Patients with an acute coronary syndrome receiving Impella 2.5 or IABP during high-risk PCI were studied (13 Impella; 62 IABP). Vascular complications and incidence of bleeding were compared.

RESULTS

Post-procedure hematocrit was similar between groups. Blood transfusion occurred in 38.4% and 32.2% of patients in the Impella and IABP groups, respectively (P = NS); 65.3%, 30.7% and 3.8% of bleeding were due to vascular access site/procedure related, gastrointestinal and genitourinary, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference in vascular complications between the Impella and IABP groups (15.3% and 6.4% of patients, respectively); mesenteric ischemia (n = 1) and aortic rupture (n = 1) were only in the IABP group. In-hospital and one-year mortality were not statistically significant between groups.

CONCLUSION

Impella can be used as safely as IABP during high-risk PCI with similar vascular and bleeding complications. Importantly, approximately one third of bleeding was from the gastrointestinal system warranting careful prophylactic measures and monitoring.

The cost-effectiveness of a new percutaneous ventricular assist device for high-risk PCI patients: mid-stage evaluation from the European perspective

OBJECTIVE

A new and smaller percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD, Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, MA) has been developed to provide circulatory support in hemodynamically unstable patients and to prevent hemodynamic collapse during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The objective of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this specific device compared to the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) from the European perspective. Additional analysis on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was conducted for observational purposes only, given its use in some European countries.

METHODS

A combination of a decision tree and Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the small, pVAD. The short-term (30-day) effectiveness and safety (early survival, risk of bleeding, and stroke) were modeled, as well as long-term risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure). The short-term effectiveness and safety data for the device were obtained from two registries (the Europella and USpella), both of which are large multi-center studies in high-risk patient groups. Probabilities of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events were obtained from various published clinical studies. The economic analysis was conducted from a German statutory health insurance perspective and only direct medical costs were included. Cost-effectiveness was estimated over a 10-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Compared with IABP, the pVAD generated an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.22 (with Euro-registry data) and 0.27 (with US-registry data). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the device varied between €38,069 (with Euro-registry data) and €31,727 (with US-registry data) per QALY compared with IABP.

KEY LIMITATIONS

Unadjusted, indirect comparisons of short-term effectiveness and safety between the interventions were used in the model. Cost and utility data were retrieved from various sources. Therefore, differences in patient populations may bias the estimated cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IABP, the pVAD is a cost-effective intervention for high-risk PCI patients, with ICERs well-below the conventional cost-effectiveness threshold.

Novel combination of impella and extra corporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to full recovery in fulminant myocarditis

A 31-year-old male was transferred to our hospital with severe heart failure due to viral myocarditis. He progressed to multiorgan failure requiring intubation and maximal doses of multiple vasopressors. Circulatory support was provided with an Impella device as a bridge to an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) system. On full mechanical cardiovascular support, the patient's hemodynamic status improved and ECMO and Impella were explanted after 48 hours. Three days later, he was extubated and continued on to a full recovery. There are no specific therapies for fulminant myocarditis but first-line treatment is supportive care. ECMO is commonly used in patients with severe heart failure. In severe systolic dysfunction, left ventricular decompression is required to reduce myocardial wall stress, decrease myocardial oxygen requirements, and enhance the chances of recovery. The Impella, an active support system, is less invasive than classical decompressive techniques and is associated with lower requirements for blood products with fewer thromboembolic complications. This is the only case reported of the contemporary use of Impella and ECMO as a bridge to full recovery in an adult with myocarditis. It also presents a novel use of the Impella device in decompressing the left ventricle of an adult patient on ECMO.

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices: new deus ex machina?

The development of ventricular assist devices has broadened the means with which one can treat acute heart failure. Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) have risen from recent technological advances. They are smaller, easier, and faster to implant, all important qualities in the setting of acute heart failure. The present paper briefly describes the functioning and assets of the most common devices used today. It gives an overview of the current evidence and indications for left ventricular assist device use in cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Finally, extracorporeal life support devices are dealt with in the setting of hemodynamic support.