Timing of impella placement in PCI for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: An updated meta-analysis

Timing of Initiation of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support and Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides full hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock, but optimal timing of ECMO initiation remains uncertain. We sought to determine whether earlier initiation of ECMO is associated with improved survival in cardiogenic shock.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analyzed adult patients with cardiogenic shock who received venoarterial ECMO from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry from 2009 to 2019, excluding those cannulated following an operation. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association between time from admission to ECMO initiation and in-hospital death. Among 8619 patients (median, 56.7 [range, 44.8-65.6] years; 33.5% women), the median duration from admission to ECMO initiation was 14 (5-32) hours. Patients who had ECMO initiated within 24 hours (n=5882 [68.2%]) differed from those who had ECMO initiated after 24 hours, with younger age, more preceding cardiac arrest, and worse acidosis. After multivariable adjustment, patients with ECMO initiated >24 hours after admission had higher risk of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.06-1.36]; P=0.004). Each 12-hour increase in the time from admission to ECMO initiation was incrementally associated with higher adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; P<0.001). The association between longer time to ECMO and worse outcomes appeared stronger in patients with lower shock severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer delays from admission to ECMO initiation were associated with higher a mortality rate in a large-scale, international registry. Our analysis supports optimization of door-to-support time and the avoidance of inappropriately delayed ECMO initiation.

Protected high risk percutaneous coronary intervention-Impella 5.0 as a single-access technique: a case report

Background

Patients requiring coronary intervention after acute myocardial infarction, with decompensated heart failure and multiple co-morbidities, present a challenging clinical scenario. Addressing such high-risk cases has been a marked increase in the simultaneous support using microaxial flow pump devices, providing a crucial haemodynamic support during procedures.

Case summary

We report the case of a 58-year-old man, with a non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the context of a peripheral vascular surgery. Echocardiography revealed severely reduced left ventricular function and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated transmural scars in all but left anterior descending artery area. The patient was of extreme high surgical risk due to the multiple co-morbidities, acute decompensation heart failure, and peripheral artery disease, and, therefore, the heart team preferred protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft for revascularization. The peripheral artery disease included severely calcified ascending aorta, occlusions of both femoral arteries, the left subclavian artery, and the right radial artery. Taken together, the heart team agreed on a hybrid approach with surgical implantation of Impella 5.0 via the left subclavian artery, by a single-access technique. Following the intervention procedure, haemostasis of the vascular prosthesis was achieved by an angio-seal technique without complications. The patient recovered satisfactorily, with improved left ventricular function, and discharged 10 days post-procedure.

Discussion

The single-access high-risk PCI technique offers a standardized approach for microaxial flow pump devices such as Impella 5.0 and PCI. The subclavian artery as a single-access route for high-risk PCI has demonstrated safety and efficacy.

A Real-World Analysis of New-Onset Heart Failure After Anterior Wall ST-Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction in the United States

The 1-year incidence of heart failure (HF) after anterior wall ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains difficult to determine because of inconsistencies in reporting, definitions, and adjudication. The objective of this study was to evaluate the 1-year incidence of HF after anterior wall STEMI in a real-world data set using a variety of potential criteria and composite definitions. In a retrospective cohort study, anonymized patient data was accessed through a federated health research network (TriNetX Limited Liability Company (LLC)) of 56 US healthcare organizations (US Collaborative Network). Patients were identified based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision criteria for anterior wall STEMI during the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022 and the absence of prespecified signs or symptoms of HF. Values for 1-year incidence were calculated as 1 minus Kaplan-Meier survival at 12 months after anterior wall STEMI. Univariate Cox proportional hazard ratio was calculated to compare risk associated with potential risk factors. The analysis utilized 5 different types of definition criteria for HF: Diagnosis codes, Signs and symptoms, Laboratory/imaging, Medications, and Composites. A total of 34,395 patients from the US Collaborative Network met eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The 1-year incidence of HF varied from 2% to 30% depending upon the definition criteria. Although no single criteria exceeded a 1-year incidence of 20%, a simple composite of HF diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision-I50) or use of loop diuretic produced a 1-year incidence 26.1% that was used as the benchmark outcome for evaluation of risk factors. Age ≥65 years, Black race, low-density lipoprotein ≥100 mg/100 ml, elevated hemoglobin A1c (7% to 9% and >9%), and body mass index≥35 kg/m2 were also associated with increased risk of HF. In conclusion, patients with anterior wall STEMI continue to be at high risk for new-onset HF. In the absence of structured, prospective, systematically adjudicated diagnostic criteria, composite definitions are more likely to yield accurate estimates of HF incidence.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Use and Outcomes in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Impella (a Nationwide Analysis from the United States)

The role of continuous hemodynamic assessment with pulmonary artery (PA) catheter placement in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains debated. We aimed to assess the association between PA catheter placement and clinical outcomes in patients with CS secondary to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with an intravascular microaxial flow pump. We identified patients hospitalized with STEMI complicated by CS on mechanical circulatory support with an intravascular microaxial flow pump (Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts) using the National Inpatient Sample database and compared the outcomes in those treated with and without PA catheters. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, hospital length of stay, inpatient costs, and temporal trends. The total cohort included 14,635 hospitalizations for STEMI complicated by CS treated with Impella between 2016 and 2020, of whom 5,505 (37.6%) received PA catheters. Over the study period, the use of PA catheters increased significantly from 25.9% to 41.8% (ptrend <0.01). Similarly, the use of Impella increased from 9.9% to 18.9% (ptrend <0.01). After adjustment for baseline characteristics using a multivariate logistic regression analysis, PA catheter use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.96, p = 0.01) and similar cardiovascular, neurologic, renal, and hematologic complications; length of stay; and inpatient costs compared with no PA catheter use. In conclusion, PA catheter use in patients with STEMI complicated by CS treated with Impella is associated with reduced in-hospital mortality and similar complication rates. Given the mortality benefit, further research is necessary to optimize PA catheter use in patients with STEMI with CS.

Short-term mechanical support with the Impella 5.x for mitral valve surgery in advanced heart failure-protected cardiac surgery

Introduction

Surgical treatment of patients with mitral valve regurgitation and advanced heart failure remains challenging. In order to avoid peri-operative low cardiac output, Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (5.x), implanted electively in a one-stage procedure, may serve as a peri-operative short-term mechanical circulatory support system (st-MCS) in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery.

Methods

Between July 2017 and April 2022, 11 consecutive patients underwent high-risk mitral valve surgery for mitral regurgitation supported with an Impella 5.x system (Abiomed, Inc. Danvers, MA). All patients were discussed in the heart team and were either not eligible for transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) or surgery was considered favorable. In all cases, the indication for Impella 5.x implantation was made during the preoperative planning phase.

Results

The mean age at the time of surgery was 61.6 ± 7.7 years. All patients presented with mitral regurgitation due to either ischemic (n = 5) or dilatative (n = 6) cardiomyopathy with a mean ejection fraction of 21 ± 4% (EuroScore II 6.1 ± 2.5). Uneventful mitral valve repair (n = 8) or replacement (n = 3) was performed via median sternotomy (n = 8) or right lateral mini thoracotomy (n = 3). In six patients, concomitant procedures, either tricuspid valve repair, aortic valve replacement or CABG were necessary. The mean duration on Impella support was 8 ± 5 days. All, but one patient, were successfully weaned from st-MCS, with no Impella-related complications. 30-day survival was 90.9%.

Conclusion

Protected cardiac surgery with st-MCS using the Impella 5.x is safe and feasible when applied in high-risk mitral valve surgery without st-MCS-related complications, resulting in excellent outcomes. This strategy might offer an alternative and comprehensive approach for the treatment of patients with mitral regurgitation in advanced heart failure, deemed ineligible for TEER or with need of concomitant surgery.

Impact of in-Hospital Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Recovery on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Impella Support for HR PCI or Cardiogenic Shock: A Sub-Analysis from the IMP-IT Registry

(1) Background: Percutaneous left ventricle assist devices (pLVADs) demonstrated an improvement in mid-term clinical outcomes in selected patients with severely depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. However, the prognostic impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery is unclear. Accordingly, the present sub-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of LVEF recovery in both cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR PCI) supported with pLVADs in the IMP-IT registry. (2) Methods: A total of 279 patients (116 patients in CS and 163 patients in HR PCI) treated with Impella 2.5 or CP in the IMP-IT registry were included in this analysis, after excluding those who died while in the hospital or with missing data on LVEF recovery. The primary study objective was a composite of all-cause death, rehospitalisation for heart failure, left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, or heart transplantation (HT), overall referred to as the major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of in-hospital LVEF recovery on the primary study objective in patients treated with Impella for HR PCI and CS, respectively. (3) Results: The mean in-hospital change in LVEF was 10 ± 1% (p < 0.001) in the CS cohort and 3 ± 7% (p < 0.001) in the HR PCI group, achieved by 44% and 40% of patients, respectively. In the CS group, patients with less than 10% in-hospital LVEF recovery experienced higher rates of MACE at 1 year of follow-up (FU) (51% vs. 21%, HR 3.8, CI 1.7-8.4, p < 0.01). After multivariate analysis, LVEF recovery was the main independent protective factor for MACE at FU (HR 0.23, CI 0.08-0.64, p = 0.02). In the HR PCI group, LVEF recovery (>3%) was not associated with lower MACE at multivariable analysis (HR 0.73, CI 0.31-1.72, p = 0.17). Conversely, the completeness of revascularisation was found to be a protective factor for MACE (HR 0.11, CI 0.02-0.62, p = 0.02) (4) Conclusions: Significant LVEF recovery was associated with improved outcomes in CS patients treated with PCI during mechanical circulatory support with Impella, whereas complete revascularisation showed a significant clinical relevance in HR PCI.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock: Current Studies and Future Directions

Cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for most deaths in the population with AMI and continues to be associated with high short-term mortality. Several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been developed to treat CS and studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with AMI-CS. Unfortunately, none of these RCTs has demonstrated an improvement in survival with temporary MCS in AMI-CS. Potential reasons for these negative results in RCTs are numerous and reflect the challenges of enrolling critically ill patients with CS. Researchers have used observational study designs to provide insights about outcomes associated with the use of temporary MCS in AMI-CS. These observational studies have yielded conflicting results, in some cases contrary to the results of RCTs. Several limitations pertinent to both RCTs and observational analyses, mostly relating to selection bias and failure to consider unmeasured confounding variables and population heterogeneity, preclude drawing strong inferences regarding the effects of temporary MCS on survival in populations with AMI-CS. Understanding these limitations is essential to correctly interpreting the literature regarding temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and is necessary to inform the design of future studies that will potentially provide stronger evidence. Optimally matching temporary MCS devices to the needs of individual patients with AMI-CS will presumably be more successful than indiscriminate application in unselected patients. In this review, we discuss the existing literature on temporary MCS to treat AMI-CS and describe the specific challenges that must be overcome to develop an improved evidence base for guiding clinical practice.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2022

This special article is the 15th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief Dr. Kaplan and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series, namely the research highlights of the past year in the specialties of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiology. The major themes selected for 2022 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights, in the specialties for 2022, begin with an update on COVID-19 therapies, with a focus on the temporal updates in a wide range of therapies, progressing from medical to the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and, ultimately, with lung transplantation in this high-risk group. The second major theme is focused on medical cardiology, with the authors discussing new insights into the life cycle of coronary disease, heart failure treatments, and outcomes related to novel statin therapy. The third theme is focused on mechanical circulatory support, with discussions focusing on both right-sided and left-sided temporary support outcomes and the optimal timing of deployment. The fourth and final theme is an update on cardiac surgery, with a discussion of the diverse aspects of concomitant valvular surgery and the optimal approach to procedural treatment for coronary artery disease. The themes selected for this 15th special article are only a few of the diverse advances in the specialties during 2022. These highlights will inform the reader of key updates on a variety of topics, leading to the improvement of perioperative outcomes for patients with cardiothoracic and vascular disease.

Single center experience and early outcomes of Impella 5.5

Background

Acute decompensated heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock (CS) frequently are refractory to conservative treatment and require mechanical circulatory support (MCS). We report our early clinical experience and evaluate patient outcomes with the newer generation surgical Impella 5.5.

Methods

Seventy patients that underwent Impella 5.5 implantation between October 2019 and December 2021 at a single center were enrolled in this study. Pre-operative characteristics, peri-operative clinical course information, and post-operative outcomes were retrospectively collected.

Results

Fifty-seven (81%) patients survived to discharge, and 51 (76%) patients survived at the time of the first 30 days post-discharge visit. Thirty-one patients (44%) received Impella support for a bridge to advanced surgical heart failure therapy (transplant or durable left ventricular assist device [LVAD]), 27 (39%) cases were used for a bridge to recovery/decision and 12 (17.1%) cases was used for planned perioperative support for high-risk cardiac surgery procedure.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that Impella 5.5 provides favorable survival in the management of HF and CS, particularly used for a bridge to heart transplant or LVAD. Early extubation and mobilization with high flow circulatory support allowed effective tailoring of MCS approaches from peri-operative support for high-risk cardiac surgery, bridge to recovery, and to advanced surgical heart failure therapy.

Specific clinical vignettes in high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention

There are several cardiac- and patient-related factors that come into play when considering patients for protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Cardiac factors include complexity/location of coronary lesions, the degree of left or right ventricular impairment, the presence of valvular lesions, and ventricular arrhythmias. Patient related factors include comorbidities that would render the patient at a higher risk of death should cardiogenic shock ensue during the procedure. Comorbidities include chronic lung disease (chronic obstructive airways disease, asthma, pulmonary fibrosis), renal or liver impairment, other cardiovascular diseases (such as previous cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack, peripheral arterial disease, carotid stenosis), diabetes, frailty and advanced age. Here, we present three very different cases where left ventricular support was deemed appropriate to reduce peri-procedural risk and optimize outcomes.

Preventive Impella® Support in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Background: Patients with severely reduced LV-EF ≤ 30% undergoing CABG have a high risk for postoperative cardiogenic shock. The optimal timing of an adequate hemodynamic support has an impact on short- and midterm mortality after CABG. This study aimed to assess the prophylactic use of the Impella pump in high-risk patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, 14 patients with LV-EF (≤30%) undergoing cardiac surgery received a prophylactic, perioperative Impella (5.0, 5.5) support between 2020 and 2022. Results: The mean age at surgery was 64.2 ± 2.6 years, the mean preoperative LV-EF was 20.7% ± 1.56%. The duration of Impella support was 4 (3–7.8) days and the 30-day survival rate was 92.85%. Acute renal failure occurred in four patients who were dialyzed on average for 1.2 ± 0.7 days. Mechanical ventilation was needed for 1.75 (0.9–2.7) days. Time to inotrope/vasopressor independence was 2 (0.97–7.25) days with a highest lactate level (24 h postoperatively) of 3.8 ± 0.6 mmol/l. Postoperative LV-EF showed a significant improvement when compared to preoperative LV-EF (29.1% ± 2.6% vs. 20.7% ± 1.56% (p = 0.022)). Conclusion: The prophylactic Impella application seems to be a safe approach to improve the outcomes of this patient population.