Six months follow-up of protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the microaxial Impella pump: results from the German Impella registry

Mechanical Circulatory Support with Impella: Principles, Evidence, and Daily Practice

The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) microaxial pump is a percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) that has been shown to increase coronary perfusion, reduce myocardial oxygen demand, and improve peripheral organ perfusion. Therefore, indications for the Impella device include emergency use for cardiogenic shock (CS) and pre-emptive implantation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). However, despite their exponential use in cardiovascular practice over the past decade, there is limited randomized evidence to support the benefits of this therapy and growing concern regarding complication rates. In this review, we summarize the principles, evidence, and practical considerations of the most widely used Impella CP percutaneous left ventricular support in both CS and HR-PCI settings, moving from the historical background to current issues and future expectations for this device.

Development of a Novel Score to Predict Urgent Mechanical Circulatory Support in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Estimating the likelihood of urgent mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can facilitate procedural planning and clinical decision-making in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We analyzed 2,784 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 12 centers. The variable importance was estimated by a bootstrap applying a random forest algorithm to a propensity-matched sample (a ratio of 1:5 matching cases with controls on center). The identified variables were used to predict the risk of urgent MCS. The performance of the risk model was assessed in-sample and on 2,411 out-of-sample procedures that did not require urgent MCS. Urgent MCS was used in 62 (2.2%) of cases. Patients who required urgent MCS were older (70 [63 to 77] vs 66 [58 to 73] years, p = 0.003) compared with those who did not require urgent MCS. Technical (68% vs 87%, p <0.001) and procedural success (40% vs 85%, p <0.001) was lower in the urgent MCS group compared with cases that did not require urgent MCS. The risk model for urgent MCS use included retrograde crossing strategy, left ventricular ejection fraction, and lesion length. The resulting model demonstrated good calibration and discriminatory capacity with the area under the curve (95% confidence interval) of 0.79 (0.73 to 0.86) and specificity and sensitivity of 86% and 52%, respectively. In the out-of-sample set, the specificity of the model was 87%. The Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention CTO MCS score can help estimate the risk of urgent MCS use during CTO PCI.

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study. We analyzed the clinical and angiographic characteristics, and procedural outcomes of 7,171 CTO PCIs performed between 2012 and 2021 at 35 international centers. Mean age was 64.5 ± 10 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 50 ± 13%. MCS was used in 4.5%, prophylactically in 78.7%, and urgently in 21.3%. The most common type of MCS overall was Impella CP (Abiomed) (55.5%), followed by intra-aortic balloon pump (14.8%) and TandemHeart (LivaNova Inc.) (10.0%). Prophylactic MCS patients were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (55% vs 42%, p <0.001) and had more complex lesions compared with cases without prophylactic MCS (Japan-CTO score: 2.80 ± 1.22 vs 2.39 ± 1.27, p <0.001). Cases with prophylactic MCS had similar technical (86% vs 87%, p = 0.643) but lower procedural (80% vs 86%, p = 0.028) success rates and higher rates of periprocedural major cardiac adverse events compared with no prophylactic MCS use (6.55% vs 1.68%, p <0.001). Urgent MCS use was associated with lower technical (68% vs 87%, p <0.001) and procedural (39% vs 86%, p <0.001) success rates and higher major cardiac adverse events compared with no-MCS use (32.26% vs 1.68%, p <0.001). The differences persisted in multivariable analyses. In summary, in this contemporary multicenter registry, MCS was used in 4.5% of CTO PCIs, mostly prophylactically (78.7%). Elective MCS cases had similar technical success but a higher risk of complications. Urgent MCS cases had lower technical and procedural success and higher periprocedural major complication rates.

Optimized patient selection in high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients with poor left-ventricular (LV) function undergoing elective high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCIs). These patients are often in critical condition and not suitable candidates for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. For the definition of HR-PCI, there is a growing consensus that multiple factors must be considered to define the complexity of PCI. These include haemodynamic status, left-ventricular ejection fraction, clinical characteristics, and concomitant diseases, as well as the complexity of the coronary anatomy/lesions. Although haemodynamic support by percutaneous LV assist devices is commonly adopted in HR-PCI (protected PCI), there are no clear guideline recommendations for indication due to limited published data. Therefore, decisions to use a nonsurgical, minimally invasive procedure in HR-PCI patients should be based on a risk-benefit assessment by a multidisciplinary team. Here, the current evidence and indications for protected PCI will be discussed.

Clinical expert consensus document on the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices during complex high-risk PCI in India using a standardised algorithm

Over the past decade, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), such as the Impella microaxial flow pump (Abiomed), have been increasingly used to provide haemodynamic support during complex and high-risk revascularisation procedures to reduce the risk of intraprocedural haemodynamic compromise and to facilitate complete and optimal revascularisation. A global consensus on patient selection for the use of pLVADs, however, is currently lacking. Access to these devices is different across the world, thus, individual health care environments need to create and refine patient selection paradigms to optimise the use of these devices. The Impella pLVAD has recently been introduced in India and is being used in several centres in the management of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and cardiogenic shock. With this increasing utilisation, there is a need for a standardised evaluation protocol to guide Impella use that factors in the unique economic and infrastructural characteristics of India's health care system to ensure that the needs of patients are optimally managed. In this consensus document, we present an algorithm to guide Impella use in Indian patients: to establish a standardised patient selection and usage paradigm that will allow both optimal patient outcomes and ongoing data collection.

Patient Selection for Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Who Benefits the Most?

The evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enables a complete revascularization of complex coronary lesions. However, simultaneously, patients are presenting nowadays with higher rates of comorbidities, which may lead to a lower physiologic tolerance for complex PCI. To avoid hemodynamic instability during PCI and achieve safe complete revascularization, protected PCI using mechanical circulatory support devices has been developed. However, which patients would benefit from the protected PCI is still in debate. Hence, this review provides practical approaches for the selection of patients by outlining current clinical data assessing utility of protected PCI in high-risk patients.

Adverse Events of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Devices-A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study

Worldwide, the left ventricular assist device Impella^® (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is increasingly implanted in patients with acute cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions. Despite its long history of use, few studies have assessed its safety and possible complications associated with its use. All patients treated with a left-sided Impella^® device at the University Hospital of Basel from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2019 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of mortality and adverse events (bleeding, acute kidney injury, and limb ischemia). Out of 281 included patients, at least one adverse event was present in 262 patients (93%). Rates of in-hospital, 90-day, and one-year mortality were 48%, 47%, and 50%, respectively. BARC type 3 bleeding (62%) and hemolysis (41.6%) were the most common complications. AKI was observed in 50% of all patients. Renal replacement therapy was required in 97 (35%) of all patients. Limb ischemia occurred in 13% of cases. Bleeding and hemolysis are common Impella^®-associated complications. Additionally, we found a high rate of AKI. A careful selection of patients receiving microaxial LV support and defining the indication for its use are essential measures to be taken for the benefits to outweigh potential complications.

Short term outcomes of Impella circulatory support for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study is to evaluate short term safety and efficacy of Impella in high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) population.

BACKGROUND

While several studies demonstrated the clinical significance of Impella in HR-PCI, few data exist about its impact on short term outcome.

METHODS

All studies reporting short term outcomes of PCI with any Impella device were included. The primary endpoint was either in-hospital or 30-day mortality, while vascular complications, post-procedural stroke, post-procedural dialysis and bleeding complications were assessed as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 7448 patients were included. Median age was 69.5 years old (67-73), with a mean ejection fraction of 29.7% (20%-39%) and a Syntax score of 30.2 (25. 5-33, interquartile [IQR]). Impella 2.5 was the most commonly used axial flow pump used to support these PCIs (88.7%). In-hospital death was observed in 5.09% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.69-6.49, I²  = 78%), while vascular complications in 2.53% of patients (1.07-4.00, I²  = 89%) and post-procedural stroke in 2.77% of patients (0.50-6.05, I²  = 98%). Major bleeding occurred in 5.98% of patients (3.66-8.31, I²  = 90%) and post-procedural dialysis in 4.44% of patients (1.50-7.37, I²  = 93% all CI 93%).

CONCLUSION

Use of Impella in high risk PCI appears to have an acceptable rate of complication, especially regarding vascular complications and major bleedings.

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

Complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is increasingly being performed, often with mechanical circulatory support (MCS), though to date, there are limited randomised data on the efficacy of MCS for HR-PCI. The majority of MCS is provided by intra-aortic balloon pumps, but increasingly Impella® (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) heart pumps are being used. While the Impella pumps provide greater increases in cardiac output, these devices require large bore access, which has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications. Decisions regarding the use of Impella are often based on risk-benefit considerations, with Impella-related bleeding risk being a major factor that can impact decisions for planned use. While bleeding risk related to large bore access is a concern, published data on the risk have been quite variable. Thus, the goal of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of reports describing bleeding and vascular complications for Impella-supported HR-PCI.

The Role of Hemodynamic Support in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Patients with advanced age, complex coronary anatomy, and multiple comorbidities are often unsuitable for surgical revascularization. In this setting, hemodynamic support devices are used as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention to maintain hemodynamic stability and enable optimal revascularization. This article provides an overview of percutaneous hemodynamic support devices currently used in clinical practice for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. These include the intra-aortic balloon pump, centrifugal pumps (TandemHeart, venous arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), and micro-axial Impella pump. The hemodynamic effects, clinical evidence supporting improved outcomes and recovery of heart function, and associated complications with these devices are highlighted, with a special focus on Impella pumps.

Patient Selection for Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Who Benefits the Most?

The evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) enables a complete revascularization of complex coronary lesions. However, simultaneously, patients are presenting nowadays with higher rates of comorbidities, which may lead to a lower physiologic tolerance for complex PCI. To avoid hemodynamic instability during PCI and achieve safe complete revascularization, protected PCI using mechanical circulatory support devices has been developed. However, which patients would benefit from the protected PCI is still in debate. Hence, this review provides practical approaches for the selection of patients by outlining current clinical data assessing utility of protected PCI in high-risk patients.