Percutaneous mechanical cardiac assist in myocardial infarction. Where are we now, where are we going?

Age- and sex-related differences in risk factors for perioperative intra-aortic balloon pump application in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

An intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is a mechanical circulatory device frequently used in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). As a treatment for perioperative haemodynamic instability, IABP insertion often implicates an adverse outcome. This study aimed to investigate the age- and sex-related disparity in risk factors for perioperative IABP insertion in CABG patients.

Methods

A total of 2,460 CABG patients were included and divided into subgroups by age (elderly subgroup, ≥65 years; young subgroup, <65 years) and sex. Basic characteristics were compared between IABP and non-IABP patients in the overall patient group and the subgroups. Multivariate logistic analysis was used to investigate the significant risk factors for perioperative IABP application, and interaction effects among the potential risk factors were analysed. Combined receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the prediction value of combined risk factors.

Results

The overall patient group had a mean age of 61.5 years. The application rate of perioperative IABP was 8.0%. A left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% significantly correlated with perioperative IABP application in the overall patient group and the subgroups. Traditional factors such as myocardial infarction history, atrial fibrillation history, and intraoperative estimated blood loss were significant risk factors in certain subgroups. Small dense low-density lipoprotein levels were significantly associated with IABP insertion in the male subgroup and young subgroup. The area under the curve of combined risk factors was significantly higher than that of LVEF <50% alone in the overall patient group and subgroups.

Conclusion

Age- and sex-related differences were present in the risk factor distribution for perioperative IABP insertion in CABG patients.

Complications of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: An Appraisal of Contemporary Literature

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with hemodynamic compromise and end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac etiology. In addition to vasoactive medications, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices offer the ability to support the hemodynamics and prevent acute organ failure. Despite the wide array of available MCS devices for CS, there are limited data on the complications from these devices. In this review, we seek to summarize the complications of MCS devices in the contemporary era. Using a systems-based approach, this review covers domains of hematological, neurological, vascular, infectious, mechanical, and miscellaneous complications. These data are intended to provide a balanced narrative and aid in risk-benefit decision-making in this acutely ill population.

Intra-aortic balloon pump postcardiac surgery: A literature review

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been the most commonly used mechanical assist circulatory device in many postcardiotomy low output disorders for decades. Mechanism of IABP is based on its inflation in time of the diastolic pressure in the aortic root resulting increase in the blood and oxygen amount of the coronary artery and its deflation in left ventricular afterload during the systolic period. Prophylactic and postoperative application of IABP has been suggested by researchers, which has been commonly used in high-risk patients undertaking coronary artery bypass grafting surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention. Other researchers put forward the idea of the percutaneous IABP insertion throughout the left axillary artery as a reliable and relatively well-tolerated approach and also as a recovery tool to bridge patients with end-stage heart failure to heart transplantation. The current review was aimed to give further insight into routine IABP application by presenting the basic principles and trends in the incidence, management, role of IABP recovery, and long-lasting mortality outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disorders and discussing previous and current evidence.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs . intra‐aortic balloon pump in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiovascular intervention: A meta‐analysis

Objective

Although controversial, the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) are widely used for initial hemodynamic stabilization. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of these two devices in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model.

Results

The quantitative analysis included 4 RCTs and 2 observational studies. A total of 348 patients received PLVAD and 340 received IABP. Meta-analysis revealed that early mortality rates (in-hospital or 30-day) did not differ between the PLVAD and IABP groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.70–1.51, P = 0.89). Significant differences were observed between the two groups in the composite, in-hospital, non-major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.01–1.68, P = 0.04).

Conclusions

Compared with IABP, PLVAD with active circulatory support did not improve early survival in those with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing either PCI or VT ablation, but increased the in-hospital non-MACCE rate.

The Role of Percutaneous Haemodynamic Support in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock

The experience and usage of percutaneous cardiac assist devices in cardiogenic shock as well as high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have increased over the years. Nonetheless, there is still little evidence of clinical benefit of these devices other than immediate haemodynamic improvement. Despite the fact that these devices are used to treat a rather complex patient population, clinical testing remains important in order to evaluate their true impact on clinical outcome before being adopted into clinical practice. Therefore, this review shows an overview of the current experience and evidence of the available percutaneous cardiac assist devices.

Percutaneous Mechanical Ventricular Support in Acute Cardiac Care: A UK Quaternary Centre Experience Using 2.5L, 3.8L and 5.0L Impella Catheters

Aims

The Impella is a percutaneous ventricular assist device. The majority of published data describes the 2.5L and 5.0L devices, and little data is available for the newer 3.8L device. We examined the indications and outcomes from our single-centre “real-world” registry at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK, using all three pump sizes.

Methods and Results

Records from all patients who underwent attempted Impella-assisted procedures at our centre were examined retrospectively. Impella implantation was attempted in 49 patients (mean age 72 ± 13 years; 80% male) and was successful in 48 (98%). 45 patients underwent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one patient underwent balloon aortic valvuloplasty and 3 patients had Impella as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. The 2.5L and 3.8L devices were used in 36 (75%) and 11 (23%) patients, respectively, while one patient (2%) had the 5L device. Vascular complications occurred in only one patient (2%) and stroke and peri-procedural myocardial infarction occurred in one patient (2%), while in-hospital mortality was 20% (10/49).

Conclusions

In this large real-world registry, we have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of the Impella device for a wide range of indications. This includes the first series of the 3.8L device which provides superior support with no increase in vascular complications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40119-014-0033-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy and timing of intra-aortic counterpulsation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Guidelines strongly recommend additional intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there is no randomised evidence suggesting survival benefit of IABP treatment in CS. It is suggested that timing of initiation of IABP therapy could be of great importance. Therefore, we compared mortality rates of IABP therapy versus no IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by CS. In addition, we investigated the effect of initiation of IABP therapy on mortality.

METHODS

From a cohort of 292 STEMI patients with CS treated by primary PCI, 199 patients received IABP therapy (IABP group) and 93 patients received no support (no IABP group). The IABP group was divided into two subgroups based on timing of initiation of support, i.e. 'IABP pre PCI' (n = 59) and 'IABP post PCI' (n = 140). Outcomes were assessed by propensity stratification and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

All-cause 30-day mortality for the IABP versus the no IABP group was 47 % vs. 28 %, respectively, in univariate analysis resulting in an odds ratio (OR) of 1.67 (95%CI, 1.16 to 2.39). However, analyses adjusting outcomes by propensity stratification and logistic regression, respectively, neutralised this OR. In the IABP pre-PCI group vs. the post-PCI group 30-day mortality was 64 % vs. 40 %, resulting in an OR of 1.56 (95 % CI, 1.18 to 2.08). However, after propensity stratification analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis, there were no significant differences in odds of 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of patients with STEMI complicated by CS treated with primary PCI we observed a difference in mortality between those treated with IABP and those treated without IABP in favour of the 'no IABP' group. The mortality difference was eliminated after adjustment for differences in case mix by propensity stratification or by logistic regression analysis. Neither did we observe any difference in mortality between patients whose IABP treatment was initiated before or immediately after PCI.

Treating Refractory Cardiogenic Shock With the TandemHeart and Impella Devices: A Single Center Experience

Background

Patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) are routinely treated with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs). The utility of 2 new percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PLVADs), the Impella and TandemHeart, is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe the use of PLVADs for patients with CS at our institution.

Methods

All cases involving PLVADs in patients with CS between between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2010 at a private, tertiary referral hospital were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

All 76 cases were identified (50 IABP only, 7 Impella, 19 TandemHeart). Most Impella (5/7) and TandemHeart (10/19) patients were initially treated with an IABP before "upgrading" for increased hemodynamic support. All 76 devices (100%) were initiated successfully. Percutaneous revascularization was attempted in 63 patients with angiographic success in 57 (90%). The incidences of major complications were similar between groups, except bleeding occurred less frequently with the IABP. Mean ejection fraction on presentation was 30.4±16.5% and increased by a mean of 6.6±11.4% (P < 0.001). With the institutional approach of treating patients with CS initially with vasopressors and IABPs, then upgrading to an Impella or TandemHeart device for patients refractory to IABP therapy, the overall mortality rate was 40%.

Conclusion

The Impella and TandemHeart devices can be initiated successfully in patients with CS, are associated with high rates of angiographic success during high risk percutaneous interventions and may benefit the myocardium during myocardial infarction. Randomized trials are warranted investigating use of the Impella and TandemHeart devices in patients with CS and in patients refractory to conventional IABP therapy.

Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device the Europella registry

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective multicenter registry evaluated the safety and feasibility of left ventricular (LV) support with the Impella 2.5 (Abiomed Europe GmbH, Aachen, Germany) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Patients with complex or high-risk coronary lesions, such as last remaining vessel or left main lesions, are increasingly being treated with PCI. Because periprocedural hemodynamic compromise and complications might occur rapidly, many of these high-risk procedures are being performed with mechanical cardiac assistance, particularly in patients with poor LV function. The Impella 2.5, a percutaneous implantable LV assist device, might be a superior alternative to the traditionally used intra-aortic balloon pump.

METHODS

The Europella registry included 144 consecutive patients who underwent a high-risk PCI. Safety and feasibility end points included incidence of 30-day adverse events and successful device function.

RESULTS

Patients were older (62% >70 years of age), 54% had an LV ejection fraction < or = 30%, and the prevalence of comorbid conditions was high. Mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score was 8.2 (SD 3.4), and 43% of the patients were refused for coronary artery bypass grafting. A PCI was considered high-risk due to left main disease, last remaining vessel disease, multivessel coronary artery disease, and low LV function in 53%, 17%, 81%, and 35% of the cases, respectively. Mortality at 30 days was 5.5%. Rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, bleeding requiring transfusion/surgery, and vascular complications at 30 days were 0%, 0.7%, 6.2%, and 4.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter registry supports the safety, feasibility, and potential usefulness of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 in high-risk PCI.