Temporary mechanical circulatory support prevents the occurrence of a low-output state in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting: A case series

Mechanical Circulatory Support During Surgical Revascularization for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the use of perioperative mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and its impact on outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who were undergoing surgical revascularization.

METHODS

Patients with an ejection fraction <35% who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from 2015 to 2021 were identified (N = 378). Patients were divided into no MCS, preoperative MCS, and postoperative MCS groups on the basis of timing of MCS initiation, which included intraaortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or Impella device (Abiomed) use. The primary outcome of interest was operative mortality.

RESULTS

The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 2.4%. Sixty-six percent (n = 246) of patients had a previous myocardial infarction, and 61.8% of these patients were within 21 days of CABG. Twenty-one patients (5.6%) presented in cardiogenic shock. The preoperative MCS cohort consisted of 31 patients (8.2%) who underwent CABG a median of 2 days after MCS initiation. Thirty (7.9%) patients required postoperative MCS. Independent risk factors for requiring postoperative MCS included the preoperative ejection fraction (odds ratio, 0.93; P = .01 and the presence of preoperative MCS (odds ratio, 3.06; P = .02). Overall, operative mortality was 3.4%, and 3-year survival was 87.0%. Operative mortality in patients who did and did not receive preoperative MCS was 7.7% and 2.9% (P = .12) with no difference in long-term survival (P = .80), whereas patients requiring postoperative MCS had significantly increased operative (16.7%) and late mortality (63%; P <.01).

CONCLUSIONS

CABG can be performed safely in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with selective use of perioperative MCS. Despite advanced disease severity, patients requiring preoperative MCS demonstrate acceptable short- and long-term survival. Patients requiring postoperative MCS have increased postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support & enhancing recovery after cardiac surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the integration of enhanced recovery principles with temporary mechanical circulatory support associated with adult cardiac surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Enhanced recovery elements and efforts have been associated with improvements in quality and value. Temporary mechanical circulatory support technologies have been successfully employed, improved, and the value of their proactive use to maintain hemodynamic goals and preserve long-term myocardial function is accruing.

SUMMARY

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices promise to enhance recovery by mitigating the risk of complications, such as postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, organ dysfunction, and death, associated with adult cardiac surgery.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support with Impella in cardiac surgery: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative cardiogenic shock (CS) in cardiac surgery is still burdened by a high mortality risk. The introduction of Impella pumps in the therapeutic armory of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) has potential implications to improve the management of complex cases, although it has never been systematically addressed. We performed a systematic review of the reported use of tMCS with Impella in cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for all original studies on the Impella use in adult patients in cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (out of 151 identified by search string) were included. All studies were observational and all but one (95%) were retrospective. Seven studies focused on the implantation of Impella in the pre-operative setting (coronary or valvular surgery), either as a prophylactic device in high-risk cases (3 studies) or in patients with CS as stabilization tool prior to cardiac surgery procedure (4 studies). Three studies reported the use of Impella as periprocedural support for percutaneous valvular procedure, three as bridge to heart replacement, and six for postcardiotomy CS. Impella support had a low complication rate and was successful in supporting hemodynamics pre-, intra- and postoperatively. Most consistently reported data were left-ventricular ejection fraction at implant, short-term survival and weaning rate.

CONCLUSIONS

tMCS with Impella in cardiac surgery patients is feasible and successful. It can be applied in selected cardiac surgery patients and presents advantages over other types of support. Systematic prospective studies are needed to standardize indications for implant and management of surgical issues, and to identify which patients may benefit.

Current status of perioperative temporary mechanical circulatory support during cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine utilization and outcomes of perioperative temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in the current practice of cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND

tMCS is an evolving adjunct to cardiac surgery not fully characterized in contemporary practice.

METHODS

Using the nationwide inpatient sample we retrospectively analyzed hospital discharge data between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2019. ICD-10-CM procedure codes were used to identify and divide patient hospitalizations into those who had preoperative tMCS (pre-tMCS) versus tMCS instituted the day of surgery or afterwards (sd/post-tMCS).

RESULTS

In all, 1,383,520 hospitalizations met inclusion criteria. 86,445 (6.25%) had tMCS. tMCS was utilized in 8.74% of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), 2.58% of isolated valve, and 9.71% of valve/CABG; operations. 29,325 (33.9%) had pre-tMCS while 57,120 (66.1%) had sd/post-tMCS. The use of tMCS was associated with greater inpatient mortality (15.66% vs. 1.53%, p < .001), longer length of stay (LOS) (14.4 vs. 8.5 days, p < .001), and higher mean inflation-adjusted costs ($93,040 ± 1038 vs. $51,358 ± 296, p < .001) compared to no use. Inpatient mortality (5.98% vs. 20.63%, p < .001), LOS (13.87 vs. 14.68, p < .001), and cost ($82,621 ± 1152 SEM vs. $98,381 ± 1242) were all significantly lower with pre-tMCS compared to sd/post tMCS. When analyzed separately, mortality was higher with later utilization of tMCS (5.98% pre, 17.1% sd, and 49.05% postsurgical date insertion, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative tMCS is utilized in 6.25% of modern cardiac surgery, with two-thirds of cases instituted on the day of surgery or afterwards. The use of tMCS is associated with significantly higher mortality, longer LOS, and higher costs. Among patients undergoing tMCS, earlier utilization is associated with better outcomes.

Device profile of the Impella 5.0 and 5.5 system for mechanical circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock: overview of its safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Trans-valvular micro-axial flow pumps such as Impella are increasingly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock [CS]. A number of different Impella devices are now available providing a wide range of cardiac output. Among these, the Impella 5.0 and recently introduced Impella 5.5 pumps can provides 5.55 L/min of flow, enabling complete left ventricular support with more favorable hemodynamic effects on myocardial oxygen consumption and left ventricular unloading. These devices require placement of a surgical conduit graft for endovascular delivery, but are increasingly being used in patients with CS due to acutely decompensated heart failure [ADHF], acute myocardial infarction [AMI] and after cardiac surgery as a bridge to transplant or durable ventricular assist device surgery or myocardial recovery.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the device profile and use of the Impella 5.0 and 5.5 systems in patients with CS. Specifically; we reviewed the published literature for Impella 5.0 device to summarize data regarding safety and efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 are trans-valvular micro-axial flow pumps for which the current data suggest excellent safety and efficacy profiles as approaches to provide circulatory support, myocardial unloading, and axillary placement enabling patient mobilization and rehabilitation.

ABBREVIATIONS

pMCS, Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices; CS, Cardiogenic shock; ADHF, Acute decompensated heart failure; AMI, Acute myocardial infarction; LVAD, Left ventricular assist deviceI; ABP, Intra-aortic balloon pump; VA-ECLS, Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support.