Percutaneous temporary circulatory support devices and their use as a bridge to decision during acute decompensation of advanced heart failure

The Use of Cardioprotective Devices and Strategies in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Procedures and Cardiac Surgery

In the United States, about one million people are seen to visit the operating theater for cardiac surgery annually. However, nearly half of these visits result in complications such as renal, neurological, and cardiac injury of varying degrees. Historically, many mechanisms and approaches have been explored in attempts to reduce injuries associated with cardiac surgery and percutaneous procedures. Devices such as cardioplegia, mechanical circulatory support, and other methods have shown promising results in managing and preventing life-threatening cardiac-surgery-related outcomes such as heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Comparably, cardioprotective devices such as TandemHeart, Impella family devices, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) have also been proven to show significant cardioprotection through mechanical support. However, their use as interventional agents in the prevention of hemodynamic changes due to cardiac surgery or percutaneous interventions has been correlated with adverse effects. This can lead to a rebound increased risk of mortality in high-risk patients who undergo cardiac surgery. Further research is necessary to delineate and stratify patients into appropriate cardioprotective device groups. Furthermore, the use of one device over another in terms of efficacy remains controversial and further research is necessary to assess device potential in different settings. Clinical research is also needed regarding novel strategies and targets, such as transcutaneous vagus stimulation and supersaturated oxygen therapy, aimed at reducing mortality among high-risk cardiac surgery patients. This review explores the recent advances regarding the use of cardioprotective devices in patients undergoing percutaneous procedures and cardiac surgery.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation-Impella (ECPELLA) in a Patient With Recalcitrant Ventricular Tachycardia Undergoing Ablation

In advanced heart failure, refractory hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia (VT) can be life-threatening. The utilization of short-term temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been described. Still, it is limited to the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella 2.5/CP (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) which may only provide up to 1-2.5 L/min of added support. Escalation of MCS therapies should be considered. Referrals to advanced tertiary heart transplant centers should be done early to afford patients the best chance at an optimal outcome, with the option for heart transplant evaluation if needed. We present a case of recalcitrant hemodynamically unstable VT complicated by cardiac arrest, eventually undergoing successful VT ablation while supported on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and Impella 5.5 as a vent strategy in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-Impella (ECPELLA) configuration.

Using aortic arch short axis views during transesophageal echocardiographic examination facilitates right ventricular assist device imaging

Given the increased need for mechanical circulatory support and subsequent development of right ventricular assist devices (RVAD), appropriate imaging needs to be described to facilitate care in patients with cardiogenic shock and heart failure. We present three cases in which the upper esophageal aortic arch short axis (UE AA SAX) view on transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was utilized to effectively image RVADs: to confirm normal positioning, to detect and guide repositioning, and to visualize malfunction. These cases support the importance of the UE AA SAX TEE view in RVAD outflow imaging and, when obtainable, should be included in routine RVAD assessment.

Comparison of ECMO vs ECpella in patients with non post-pericardiotomy cardiogenic shock: An updated meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The impact of Impella and ECMO (ECPELLA) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO in patients with non post-pericardiotomy CS.

METHODS

All studies reporting short term outcomes of ECpella or VA ECMO in non post-pericardiotomy CS were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Vascular and bleeding complications and LVAD implantation/heart transplant within 30-days were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 407 studies identified, 13 observational studies (13,682 patients, 13,270 with ECMO and 412 with ECpella) were included in this analysis. 30-day mortality was 55.8% (51.6-59.9) in the VA-ECMO group and 58.3% (53.5-63.0) in the ECpella group. At meta-regression analysis the implantation of IABP did not affect mortality in the ECMO group. The rate of major bleeding in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 21.3% (16.9-26.5) and 33.1% (25.9-41.2) respectively, while the rates of the composite outcome of LVAD implantation and heart transplantation within 30-days in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 14.4% (9.0-22.2) and 10.8%. When directly compared in 3 studies, ECpella showed a positive effect on 30-day mortality compared to ECMO (OR: 1.81: 1.039-3.159).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that ECpella may reduce 30-day mortality and increase left ventricle recovery, despite increased of bleeding rates.

Overview of Ventricular Assist Devices and the Total Artificial Heart

BACKGROUND

Patients with isolated left ventricular failure may have positive outcomes after being implanted with a left ventricular assist device. Unfortunately, almost half of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction also have evidence of right ventricular dysfunction. For a subset of this population with severe biventricular failure, or those who develop right ventricular dysfunction after left ventricular assist device implantation, patients may necessitate biventricular assist devices or the total artificial heart.

OBJECTIVES

This overview of mechanical circulatory support devices will enhance nurses' ability to differentiate criteria for implantation, current practice, and outcomes with a focus on durable ventricular assist devices and the total artificial heart.

METHODS

A review of the literature involved searching CINAHL and PubMed databases using keywords biventricular assist devices, total artificial heart, and durable mechanical circulatory support. Results were narrowed to articles based on adults, 18 years or older. Seventy-eight relevant articles were identified, and 8 articles compared the durable biventricular assist devices.

RESULTS

Similar patient outcomes were found when comparing the use of left ventricular assist devices as biventricular support versus the total artificial heart.

DISCUSSION

The decision to implant the appropriate durable mechanical circulatory support for a patient in biventricular failure is complex and dependent on patient factors.

Minimally invasive single-incision temporary biventricular assist device

New short-term devices have been developed to allow percutaneous insertion. However, in some cases, open insertion becomes necessary. Less invasive insertion of short-term devices has been described previously, using two incisions. We present the case of a patient who underwent minimally invasive insertion of a biventricular device, using a single incision.