The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry

Effect of Patient's Symptom Interpretation on In-Hospital Mortality in Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The association between symptom interpretation and prognosis has not been investigated well among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). As such, the present study evaluated the effect of heart disease awareness among patients with ACS on in-hospital mortality.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a post hoc analysis of 1,979 consecutive patients with ASC with confirmed symptom interpretation on admission between 2014 and 2018, focusing on patient characteristics, recanalization time, and clinical outcomes. Upon admission, 1,264 patients interpreted their condition as cardiac disease, whereas 715 did not interpret their condition as cardiac disease. Although no significant difference was observed in door-to-balloon time between the 2 groups, onset-to-balloon time was significantly shorter among those who interpreted their condition as cardiac disease (254 vs. 345 min; P<0.001). Moreover, the hazard ratio (HR) for in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among those who did not interpret their condition as cardiac disease based on the Cox regression model adjusted for established risk factors (HR 1.73; 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.76; P=0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that prehospital symptom interpretation was significantly associated with in-hospital clinical outcomes among patients with ACS. Moreover, the observed differences in clinical prognosis were not related to door-to-balloon time, but may be related to onset-to-balloon time.

Intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with the lowest whereas Impella with the highest inpatient mortality and complications regardless of severity or hospital types

Impella and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, the effect on mortality remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of Impella and IABP on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock the large Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was utilized to study any association between the use of IABP or Impella on outcome. ICD-10 codes for Impella, IABP, and cardiogenic shock for available years 2016-2020 were utilized. A total of 844,020 patients had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. A total of 101,870 patients were treated with IABP and 39645 with an Impella. Total inpatient mortality without any device was 34.2% vs only 25.1% with IABP use (OR = 0.65, CI 0.62-0.67) but was highest at 40.7% with Impella utilization (OR = 1.32, CI 1.26-1.39). After adjusting for 47 variables, Impella utilization remained associated with the highest mortality (OR: 1.33, CI 1.25-1.41, p < 0.001), whereas IABP remained associated with the lowest mortality (OR: 0.69, CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.001). Separating rural vs teaching hospitals revealed similar findings. In patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of Impella was associated with the highest whereas IABP was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality regardless of comorbid condition.

Left ventricular unloading via percutaneous assist device during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest

INTRODUCTION

A feared complication of an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is cardiac arrest (CA). Even if return of spontaneous circulation is achieved, cardiogenic shock (CS) is common. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) supports patients with CS and is often used in conjunction with an Impella device (2.5 and CP) to off-load the left ventricle, although limited evidence supports this approach.

METHODS

The goal of this study was to determine whether a mortality difference was observed in VA-ECMO alone versus VA-ECMO with Impella (ECPELLA) in patients with CS from AMI and CA. A retrospective chart review of 50 patients with AMI-CS and CA and were supported with VA-ECMO (n = 34) or ECPELLA (n = 16) was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6-months from VA-ECMO or Impella implantation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complication rates between both cohorts and intensive care unit data.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar, except patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were more likely to be in the VA-ECMO group (p = 0.044). The ECPELLA cohort had significantly worse survival after VA-ECMO (SAVE) score (p = 0.032). Six-month all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the cohorts, even when adjusting for SAVE score. Secondary outcomes were notable for an increased rate of minor complications without an increased rate of major complications in the ECPELLA group.

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized trials are needed to determine if a mortality difference exists between VA-ECMO and ECPELLA platforms in patients with AMI complicated by CA and CS.

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock

Despite advancements in algorithms concerning the management of cardiogenic shock, current guidelines still lack the adequate integration of mechanical circulatory support devices. In recent years, more and more devices have been developed to provide circulatory with or without respiratory support, when conservative treatment with inotropic agents and vasopressors has failed. Mechanical circulatory support can be contemplated for patients with severe, refractory, or acute-coronary-syndrome-related cardiogenic shock. Through this narrative review, we delve into the differences among the types of currently used devices by presenting their notable advantages and inconveniences. We address the technical issues emerging while choosing the best possible device, temporarily as a bridge to another treatment plan or as a destination therapy, in the optimal timing for each type of patient. We also highlight the diverse implantation and removal techniques to avoid major complications such as bleeding and limb ischemia. Ultimately, we hope to shed some light in the gaps of evidence and the importance of conducting further organized studies around the topic of mechanical circulatory support when dealing with such a high mortality rate.

Evolution of Cardiogenic Shock Management and Development of a Multidisciplinary Team-Based Approach: Ten Years Experience of a Single Center

Background: The management of cardiogenic shock (CS) after ACS has evolved over time, and the development of a multidisciplinary team-based approach has been shown to improve outcomes, although mortality remains high. Methods: All consecutive patients with ACS-CS admitted at our CICU from March 2012 to July 2021 were included in this single-center retrospective study. In 2019, we established a "shock team" consisting of a cardiac intensivist, an interventional cardiologist, an anesthetist, and a cardiac surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: We included 167 patients [males 67%; age 71 (61-80) years] with ischemic CS. The proportion of SCAI shock stages from A to E were 3.6%, 6.6%, 69.4%, 9.6%, and 10.8%, respectively, with a mean baseline serum lactate of 5.2 (3.1-8.8) mmol/L. Sixty-six percent of patients had severe LV dysfunction, and 76.1% needed ≥ 1 inotropic drug. Mechanical cardiac support (MCS) was pursued in 91.1% [65% IABP, 23% Impella CP, 4% VA-ECMO]. From March 2012 to July 2021, we observed a significative temporal trend in mortality reduction from 57% to 29% (OR = 0.90, p = 0.0015). Over time, CS management has changed, with a significant increase in Impella catheter use (p = 0.0005) and a greater use of dobutamine and levosimendan (p = 0.015 and p = 0.0001) as inotropic support. In-hospital mortality varied across SCAI shock stages, and the SCAI E profile was associated with a poor prognosis regardless of patient age (OR 28.50, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The temporal trend mortality reduction in CS patients is multifactorial, and it could be explained by the multidisciplinary care developed over the years.

Impella - Current issues and future expectations for the percutaneous, microaxial flow left ventricular assist device

The importance of temporary mechanical circulatory support for treating acute heart failure with cardiogenic shock is increasingly recognized, and Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) has received particular attention in this regard. Impella is an axial flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) built into the tip of a catheter. It is inserted via a peripheral artery and implanted into the left ventricle. Although the morphology of Impella is different from a typical LVAD, it has similar actions and effects as an LVAD in terms of left ventricular drainage and aortic blood delivery. Impella increases mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic blood flow, thereby improving peripheral organ perfusion and promoting recovery from multiple organ failure. In addition, left ventricular unloading with increased MAP increases coronary perfusion and decreases myocardial oxygen demand, thereby promoting myocardial recovery. Impella is also useful as a mechanical vent of the left ventricle in patients supported with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Indications for Impella include emergency use for cardiogenic shock and non-emergent use during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and ventricular tachycardia ablation. Its intended uses for cardiogenic shock include bridge to recovery, durable device, heart transplantation, and heart surgery. Prophylactic use of Impella in high-risk patients undergoing open heart surgery to prevent postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is also gaining attention. While there have been many case reports and retrospective studies on the benefits of Impella, there is little evidence based on sufficiently large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Currently, several RCTs are now ongoing, which are critical to determine when, for whom, and how these devices should be used. In this review, we summarize the principles, physiology, indications, and complications of the Impella support and discuss current issues and future expectations for the device.

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.

Cardioprotective Strategies After Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although early reperfusion is the most effective strategy to salvage ischemic myocardium, reperfusion injury can develop with the restoration of blood flow. Therefore, it is important to identify protection mechanisms and strategies for the heart after myocardial infarction. Recent studies have shown that multiple intracellular molecules and signaling pathways are involved in cardioprotection. Meanwhile, device-based cardioprotective modalities such as cardiac left ventricular unloading, hypothermia, coronary sinus intervention, supersaturated oxygen (SSO2), and remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) have become important areas of research. Herein, we review the molecular mechanisms of cardioprotection and cardioprotective modalities after ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) to identify potential approaches to reduce mortality and improve prognosis in patients with AMI.

Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have compared Impella use to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

METHODS

We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD-10 codes (2015-2018) to identify patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity-matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS.

RESULTS

Among 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is a complex and diverse pathological condition characterized by reduced myocardial contractility. The goal of treatment of cardiogenic shock is to improve abnormal hemodynamics and maintain adequate tissue perfusion in organs. If hypotension and insufficient tissue perfusion persist despite initial therapy, temporary mechanical circulatory support (t-MCS) should be initiated. This decade sees the beginning of a new era of cardiogenic shock management using t-MCS through the accumulated experience with use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), as well as new revolutionary devices or systems such as transvalvular axial flow pump (Impella) and a combination of VA-ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) based on the knowledge of circulatory physiology. In this transitional period, we outline the approach to the management of cardiogenic shock by t-MCS. The management strategy involves carefully selecting one or a combination of the t-MCS devices, taking into account the characteristics of each device and the specific pathological condition. This selection is guided by monitoring of hemodynamics, classification of shock stage, risk stratification, and coordinated management by the multidisciplinary shock team.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support with and without intra-aortic balloon in cardiogenic shock patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical characteristics and in-hospital bleeding complications and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) associated with the use of Impella alone or the combination of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with Impella in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

All CS patients who underwent PCI and were treated with an Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device were identified. Patients were divided into two groups: having MCS support with Impella alone or with both, IABP and Impella simultaneously (dual MCS group). Bleeding complications were classified by a modified Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification. Major bleeding was defined as BARC≥3 bleeding. MACCE was the composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events and major bleeding complications.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2018 a total of 101 patients were treated at six tertiary care New York hospitals with either Impella (n = 61) or dual MCS with Impella and IABP (n = 40). Clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. Dual MCS patients presented more often with a STEMI (77.5 % vs. 45.9 %, p = 0.002) and had left main coronary artery intervention (20.3 % vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.03). Major bleeding complications (69.4 % vs. 74.1 %, p = 0.62) and MACCE rates (80.6 % vs. 79.3 %, p = 0.88) were very high but similar in both groups, however access site bleeding complications were lower in patients treated with dual MCS. In-hospital mortality was 29.5 % for the Impella group and 25.0 % for the dual MCS group (p = 062). Access site bleeding complications were lower in in patients treated with dual MCS (5.0 % vs. 24.6 %, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In CS patients undergoing PCI with either the Impella device alone or with Impella and IABP, major bleeding complications and MACCE rates were high but not significantly different between the two groups. In hospital mortality was relatively low in both MCS groups despite the high-risk characteristics of these patients. Future studies should assess the risks and benefits of the simultaneous use of these two MCS in CS patients undergoing PCI.

A goal-oriented hemodynamic approach to acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock-A single center experience

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is the most common cause of mortality following AMI, and treatment algorithms vary widely. We report the results of an analysis using time-sensitive, hemodynamic goals in the treatment of AMI-CS in a single center study.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AMI-CS from November 2016 through December 2021 were included in our retrospective analysis. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed using the electronic medical records. We identified 63 total patients who were admitted to our center with AMI-CS, and we excluded patients who did not have clear timing of AMI onset or CS onset. We evaluated the rate of survival to hospital discharge based on the quantity of certain time-sensitive hemodynamic goals were met.

RESULTS

We identified 63 patients who met criteria for AMI-CS, 39 (62%) of whom survived to hospital discharge. Odds of survival were closely related to the achievement of four time-dependent goals: cardiac power output (CPO) >0.6 Watts (W), pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) >1, lactate <4 mmol/L, and <2 vasopressors required. Of the 63 total patients, 36 (57%) received intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and 18 (29%) received an Impella CP (Abiomed) as an initial mechanical circulatory support strategy. Six patients were escalated from IABP to Impella CP for additional hemodynamic support. Nine patients were treated with vasopressors/inotropes alone. Regarding the 39 patients who survived to hospital discharge, 75% of patients met 3 or 4 goals at 24 h, whereas only 16% of deceased patients met 3 or 4 goals at 24 h. Of the 24 patients who did not survive to hospital discharge, 18 (75%) met either 0-1 goal at 24 h. There was no effect of the initial treatment strategy on achieving 3-4 goals at 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Our study evaluated the association of meeting 4 time-sensitive goals (CPO >0.6 W, PAPi >1, <2 vasopressors, and lactate <4 mmol/L) at 24 h after treatment for AMI-CS with in-hospital mortality. Our data show, in line with previous data, that the higher number of goals met at 24 h was associated with improved in-hospital mortality regardless of treatment strategy.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or standard care in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: the multicentre, randomised EURO SHOCK trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CGS) occurs in 10% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI), with in-hospital mortality rates of 40-50% despite revascularisation.

AIMS

The EURO SHOCK trial aimed to determine if early use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) could improve outcomes in patients with persistent CGS following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

METHODS

This multicentre, pan-European trial randomised patients with persistent CGS 30 minutes after PPCI of the culprit lesion to receive either VA-ECMO or continue with standard therapy. The primary outcome measure was 30-day all-cause mortality in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints included 12-month all-cause mortality and 12-month composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalisation due to heart failure.

RESULTS

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was stopped before completion of recruitment, after randomisation of 35 patients (standard therapy n=18, VA-ECMO n=17). Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 43.8% of patients randomised to VA-ECMO and in 61.1% of patients randomised to standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-1.45; p=0.22). One-year all-cause mortality was 51.8% in the VA-ECMO group and 81.5% in the standard therapy arm (HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.21-1.26; p=0.14). Vascular and bleeding complications occurred more often in the VA-ECMO arm (21.4% vs 0% and 35.7% vs 5.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited number of patients recruited to the trial, no definite conclusions could be drawn from the available data. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of randomising patients with CGS complicating acute MI but also illustrates the challenges. We hope these data will inspire and inform the design of future large-scale trials.

Management of Bleeding and Hemolysis During Percutaneous Microaxial Flow Pump Support: A Practical Approach

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are increasingly being used because of improved experience and availability. The Impella (Abiomed), a percutaneous microaxial, continuous-flow, short-term ventricular assist device, requires meticulous postimplantation management to avoid the 2 most frequent complications, namely, bleeding and hemolysis. A standardized approach to the prevention, detection, and treatment of these complications is mandatory to improve outcomes. The risk for hemolysis is mostly influenced by pump instability, resulting from patient- or device-related factors. Upfront echocardiographic assessment, frequent monitoring, and prompt intervention are essential. The precarious hemostatic balance during pVAD support results from the combination of a procoagulant state, due to critical illness and contact pathway activation, together with a variety of factors aggravating bleeding risk. Preventive strategies and appropriate management, adapted to the impact of the bleeding, are crucial. This review offers a guide to physicians to tackle these device-related complications in this critically ill pVAD-supported patient population.

Impella devices: a comprehensive review of their development, use, and impact on cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION

Impella devices have emerged as a critical tool for temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The purpose of this review is to examine the history of the different Impella devices, their hemodynamic profiles, and how the data supports their use.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the development and specifications of the Impella 2.5, Impella CP, Impella 5.0/Left Direct (LD), Impella RP, and Impella 5.5 devices. This review also covers the clinical trials that illuminate the Impella devices' use in their appropriate clinical contexts. These studies examine the effectiveness of Impella devices and have begun to yield promising results, demonstrating improved survival rates when compared to the historically high mortality rates associated with CS. It is important to weigh the benefits of Impella devices in light of their contraindications. A literature search was conducted by searching the PubMed database for reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials pertinent to Impella devices.

EXPERT OPINION

Impella devices are a crucial tool for management of patients undergoing high-risk PCI and those with CS. There is evidence that early Impella implantation is beneficial in the treatment of patients presenting with CS. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to better elucidate the benefits of Impella devices in various clinical settings.

Role of acute mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is a state of low cardiac output that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A considerable proportion of patients with cardiogenic shock respond poorly to medical management and require acute mechanical circulatory support (AMCS) devices to improve tissue perfusion as well as to support the heart. In the last two decades, many new AMCS devices have been introduced to support the right, left, and both ventricles. All these devices vary in terms of the support they provide to the body and heart, mechanism of functioning, method of insertion, and adverse events. In this review, we compare and contrast the available percutaneous and surgically placed AMCS devices used in cardiogenic shock and discuss the associated clinical and hemodynamic data to make a conscious decision about choosing a device.

Clinical Outcomes for Acute Kidney Injury in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients after Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Implantation: A Single-Center Observational Study

Background

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common after cardiac interventional procedures. The prevalence and clinical outcome of AKI in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, risk factors, and prognosis of AKI in specific patient populations.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 319 patients with AMI between January 2017 and December 2021 and who had successfully received IABP implantation. The diagnostic and staging criteria used for AKI were based on guidelines from "Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes". The composite endpoint included all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, rehospitalization for heart failure, and target vessel revascularization.

Results

A total of 139 patients (43.6%) developed AKI after receiving IABP implantation. These patients showed a higher incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-2.26, p = 0.022) and an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.07-2.44, p = 0.019). Multivariable regression models found that antibiotic use (odds ratio [OR]: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.14-3.74, p = 0.016), duration of IABP use (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.11-1.39, p < 0.001) and initial serum creatinine (SCr) (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.0-1.01, p = 0.01) were independent risk factors for AKI, whereas emergency percutaneous coronary intervention was a protective factor (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.18-0.69, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

AMI patients who received IABP implantation are at high risk of AKI. Close monitoring of these patients is critical, including the assessment of renal function before and after IABP implantation. Additional preventive measures are needed to reduce the risk of AKI in these patients.

[The Role of the Percutaneous Impella Pump in Anesthesia and Intensive Care]

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices and in particular the increasing use of the Impella device family has gained significant interest over the last two decades. Nowadays, its use plays a well-established key role in both the treatment of cardiogenic shock, and as a preventive and protective therapeutic option during high-risk procedures in both cardiac surgery and cardiology, such as complex percutaneous interventions (protected PCI). Thus, it is not surprising that the Impella device is more and more present in the perioperative setting and especially in patients on intensive care units. Despite the numerous advantages such as cardiac resting and hemodynamic stabilization, potential adverse events exist, which may lead to severe, but preventable complications, so that adequate education, early recognition of such events and a subsequent adequate management are crucial in patients with tMCS. This article provides an overview especially for anesthesiologists and intensivists focusing on technical basics, indications and contraindications for its use with special focus on the intra- and postoperative management. Furthermore, troubleshooting for most common complications for patients on Impella support is provided.

Anticoagulation practices and complications associated with Impella® support at an advanced cardiac center in the Middle East gulf region

Anticoagulation during Impella® support is a challenge due to its complications and inconsistent practice across the globe. This observational, retrospective chart review included all patients with Impella® support at our advanced cardiac center at a quaternary care hospital in the Middle East gulf region. The study was conducted over six years (2016-2022), a time period during which manufacturer recommendations for purge solution, anticoagulation protocols as well as Impella® place in therapy and utilization were all evolving. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different anticoagulation practices and association with complications and outcomes. Forty-one patients underwent Impella® during the study period, including 25 patients with support for more than 12 h, and are the focus of our analysis. Cardiogenic shock (n = 25, 60.9%) was the primary indication for Impella®, followed by facilitating high-risk PCI (n = 15, 36.7%) and left ventricular afterload reduction in patients undergoing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 1, 2.4%). Our overall Impella® usage evolved over the years from a primary use to facilitate a high-risk PCI to the recent more common use of LV unloading in cardiogenic shock. No patients experienced device malfunction and the incidence of other complications including ischemic stroke and bleeding were comparable to those reported in the literature (12.2% and 24% respectively). The 30-day all-cause mortality of 41 patients was 53.6%. In line with the evolving recommendations and evidence, we observed an underutilization of non-heparin-based purge solutions and inconsistent management of anticoagulation in the setting of both Impella® and VA ECMO which necessitates more education and protocols.

Review of Pathophysiology of Cardiogenic Shock and Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex clinical entity that continues to carry a high risk of mortality. The landscape of CS management has changed with the advent of several temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices designed to provide hemodynamic support. It remains challenging to understand the role of different temporary MCS devices in patients with CS, as many of these patients are critically ill, requiring complex care with multiple MCS device options. Each temporary MCS device can provide different types and levels of hemodynamic support. It is important to understand the risk/benefit profile of each one of them for appropriate device selection in patients with CS.

RECENT FINDINGS

MCS may be beneficial in CS patients through augmentation of cardiac output with subsequent improvement of systemic perfusion. Selecting the optimal MCS device depends on several variables including the underlying etiology of CS, clinical strategy of MCS use (bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant or durable MCS, or abridge to decision), amount of hemodynamic support needed, associated respiratory failure, and institutional preference. Furthermore, it is even more challenging to determine the appropriate time to escalate from one MCS device to another or combine different MCS devices. In this review, we discuss the current available data published in the literature on the management of CS and propose a standardized approach for escalation of MCS devices in patients with CS. Shock teams can play an important role to help in hemodynamic-guided management and algorithm-based step-by-step approach in early initiation and escalation of temporary MCS devices at different stages of CS. It is important to define the etiology of CS, and stage of shock and recognize univentricular vs biventricular shock for appropriate device selection and escalation of therapy.

Use of Impella Devices for Acute Cardiogenic Shock in the Perioperative Period of Cardiac Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The Impella ventricular support system is a device that can be inserted percutaneously or directly across the aortic valve to unload the left ventricle. The purpose of this study is to determine the role of Impella devices in patients with acute cardiogenic shock in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective single-surgeon review of 11 consecutive patients who underwent placement of Impella devices in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery was performed. Patient records were evaluated for demographics, indications for placement, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Impella devices were placed for refractory cardiogenic shock preoperatively in 6 patients, intraoperatively in 4 patients, and postoperatively as a rescue in 1 patient. Seven patients received Impella CP, 1 Impella RP, 1 Impella CP and RP, and 2 Impella 5.0. Additionally, 3 patients required preoperative venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO), and 1 patient required intraoperative venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). All Impella devices were removed 1 to 28 days after implantation. Length of stay in the intensive care unit stay ranged from 2 to 53 days (average 23.9±14.6). The 30-day and 1-year mortality were 0%. Ten of 11 patients were alive at 2 years. Also, 1 patient died 18 months after surgery from complications of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). Device-related complications included varying degrees> of hemolysis in 8 patients (73%) and device malfunction in 1 patient (9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Impella ventricular support system can be combined with other mechanical support devices for additional hemodynamic support. All patients demonstrated myocardial recovery with no deaths in the perioperative period and in 1-year of follow-up. Larger studies are necessary to validate these findings.

Microaxial circulatory support for percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Microaxial circulatory support devices have been used to support patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to pool and analyze the existing evidence on the baseline characteristics, periprocedural data, and outcomes of microaxial support before and after PCI in AMICS.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed to identify all cohort studies on Impella and PCI for cardiogenic shock in the English language. A total of five articles comprising 543 patients were included. These patients received microaxial support either before (pre-PCI) or after (post-PCI) undergoing PCI. Comparative analyses were done between both groups.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 66 years [95% Confidence Interval (58-74)], and 22% (89/396) of patients were female. ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (MI) comprised 64% (44-80) of MIs and 50% (44-56) of MIs involved the left anterior descending artery. The mean number of diseased vessels was 2.21 (1.62-2.80). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31% (23.4-38.6). The mean arterial pressure was 66.3 mm Hg (54.1-78.5). Mean serum lactate [6.1 mmol/L (3.3-8.9)] and serum creatinine [1.4 mg/dl (1.0-1.7)] were similar between groups. 30-day mortality was lower in the pre-PCI group [41% (34%-49%)] compared to the post-PCI group [61% (42%-77%), p < 0.01]. Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis showed better early survival in the pre-PCI group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients presenting with AMICS were similar at baseline in both pre-PCI and post-PCI groups. Nevertheless, pre-PCI group showed better early survival compared to post-PCI group.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With COVID-19 Presenting With Myocardial Infarction

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicating COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of cardiogenic shock and mortality. However, little is known about the frequency of use and clinical impact of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in these patients. We sought to define patterns of MCS utilization, patient characteristics, and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with STEMI. The NACMI (North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction) is an ongoing prospective, observational registry of patients with COVID-19 positive (COVID-19+) with STEMI with a contemporary control group of persons under investigation who subsequently tested negative for COVID-19 (COVID-19-). We compared the baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of COVID-19+ and patients with COVID-19- according to the use of MCS. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, recurrent MI, and repeat unplanned revascularization. A total of 1,379 patients (586 COVID-19+ and 793 COVID-19-) enrolled in the NACMI registry between January 2020 and November 2021 were included in this analysis; overall, MCS use was 12.3% (12.1% [n = 71] COVID-19+/MCS positive [MCS+] vs 12.4% [n = 98] COVID-19-/MCS+). Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The use of percutaneous coronary intervention was similar between the groups (84% vs 78%; p = 0.404). Intra-aortic balloon pump was the most frequently used MCS device in both groups (53% in COVID-19+/MCS+ and 75% in COVID-19-/MCS+). The primary outcome was significantly higher in COVID-19+/MCS+ patients (60% vs 30%; p = 0.001) because of very high in-hospital mortality (59% vs 28%; p = 0.001). In conclusion, patients with COVID-19+ with STEMI requiring MCS have very high in-hospital mortality, likely related to the significantly higher pulmonary involvement compared with patients with COVID-19- with STEMI requiring MCS.

Emerging concepts in heart failure management and treatment: circulatory support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)

Circulatory support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is being increasingly used in several critical situations but evidence of its impact on outcomes is inconsistent. Understanding of the specific indications and appropriate timing of implantation of this technology might lead to improved results. Indeed, the line between success and futility may be sometimes very thin when facing a patient in critical condition. New techniques with lighter, simpler and effective devices are being developed. Hence, ECMO has become an accessible technology that is being increasingly used outside of the operating room by heart failure specialists, critical care cardiologists and intensivists. Proper timing of utilization and choice of device may lead to better outcomes. We herein aim to improve this knowledge gap by conducting a literature review to provide simple information, evidence-based indications and a practical approach for cardiologists who may encounter acutely ill adult patients that may be ECMO candidates. This article is part of the Emerging concepts in heart failure management and treatment Special Issue: https://www.drugsincontext.com/special_issues/emerging-concepts-in-heart-failure-management-and-treatment.

Management of harlequin syndrome under ECPELLA support: A report of two cases and a proposed approach

The use of ECPELLA in patients with severe lung disease may result in an unfavorable phenomenon of differential hypoxia. The simultaneous evaluation of three arterial blood samples from different arterial line (right radial artery, left radial artery, ECMO arterial line) in patients at risk of Harlequin syndrome (also called differential hypoxemia (DH)) can localize the "mixing cloud" along the aorta. Focusing the attention on the "mixing cloud" position instead of on isolated flows of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA ECMO) and Impella CP makes the decision making easier about how to modify MCSs flows according to the clinical context. Herein, we present two cases in which ECPELLA configuration was used to treat a cardiogenic shock condition and how the ECPELLA-induced hypoxia was managed.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: Left, Right, and Biventricular Devices

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) encompasses a wide array of invasive devices, which provide short-term hemodynamic support for multiple clinical indications. Although initially developed for the management of cardiogenic shock, indications for MCS have expanded to include prophylactic insertion prior to high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment of acute circulatory failure following cardiac surgery, and bridging of end-stage heart failure patients to more definitive therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplantation. A wide variety of devices are available to provide left ventricular, right ventricular, or biventricular support. The choice of a temporary MCS device requires consideration of the clinical scenario, patient characteristics, institution protocols, and provider familiarity and training. In this review, the most common forms of left, right, and biventricular temporary MCS are discussed, along with their indications, contraindications, complications, cannulations, hemodynamic effects, and available clinical data.

Risk factors for percutaneous left ventricular assist device explant complications

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) explant remains nonstandardized with potential complications of bleeding and thrombosis. Explant settings include percutaneous techniques in the catheterization laboratory (CL), manually at bedside (MB), and surgically in the operating room (OR).

OBJECTIVE

Identify high-risk features for explant-related complications, including indication for support, setting, and technique.

METHODS

Postexplant bleeding and thrombosis/limb ischemia were identified following pLVAD removals over 2 years at a multicenter healthcare system.

RESULTS

Of 156 patients, bleeding (n = 26 [17%]) and thrombosis (n = 9 [6%]) occurred more often in patients with the peripheral arterial disease (PAD), female gender, anemia, and cardiogenic shock. OR explants had a higher combined endpoint (4/8 [50%]) versus CL (23/133 [17%], p < 0.05) driven by transfusion. There was no difference between OR versus MB (5/15 [33%], p = 0.66) or CL versus MB (p = 0.62). In shock patients, there was no difference between CL (7/30 [23%]) versus MB (5/15 [33%], p = 0.5) and OR (4/7 [57%], p = 0.16); or MB versus OR (p = 0.38). Average length of stay was significantly lower in the CL group versus MB and OR (3.6 ± 33.2 vs. 18.4 ± 10.9 vs. 28.1 ± 15.8 days, p < 0.0001). Preclosure in shock patients (5/25 [20%] vs. 11/27 [41%], p = 0.1383) and crossover balloon occlusion technique (9/44 [16%] vs. 25/112 [22%]; p = 1) were not associated with higher combined endpoints versus control.

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for pLVAD explant complications include PAD, female gender, and cardiogenic shock. There was no difference in complication rates between explant settings among cardiogenic shock patients, but shorter length of stay when performed in the CL. There was no difference in complication rates when using the crossover balloon occlusion technique.

Mechanical Assist Device-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Use of Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as an Emerging Frontier in Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock

The extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) procedure aids in the provision of prolonged cardiopulmonary support, whereas the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a ventricular assist device that maintains circulation by pumping blood into the aorta from the left ventricle. Blood is circulated in parallel with the heart by Impella. It draws blood straight into the aorta from the left ventricle, hence preserving the physiological flow. ECMO bypasses the left atrium and the left ventricle, and the end consequence is a non-physiological flow. In this article, we conducted a detailed analysis of various publications in the literature and examined various modalities pertaining to the use of ECMO and Impella for cardiogenic shocks, such as efficacy, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, device-related complications, and limitations. The Impella completely unloads the left ventricle, thereby significantly reducing the effort of the heart. Comparatively, ECMO only stabilizes a patient with cardiogenic shock for a short stretch of time and does not lessen the efforts of the left ventricle ("unload" it). In the acute setting, both devices reduced left ventricular end-diastolic pressure and provided adequate hemodynamic support. By comparing patients on Impella to those receiving ECMO, it was found that patients on Impella were associated with better clinical results, quicker recovery, limited complications, and reduced healthcare costs; however, there is a lack of conclusive studies performed demonstrating the reduction in long-term mortality rates. Considering the effectiveness of given modalities and taking into account the various studies described in the literature, Impella has reported better clinical outcomes although more clinical trials are needed for establishing the effectiveness of these interventional approaches in revascularization in cardiogenic shock.

The Battle against Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition characterized by hypoperfusion and hypoxia caused by low cardiac output [...].

Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device in Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly used to support patients with cardiogenic shock; however, outcome results are limited to single-center studies, registry data and select reviews. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching three databases for relevant studies reporting on microaxial LVAD use in adults with cardiogenic shock. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) based on short-term mortality (primary outcome), long-term mortality and device complications (secondary outcomes). We assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the Joanna Briggs Institute and the GRADE approaches, respectively. A total of 63 observational studies (3896 patients), 6 propensity-score matched (PSM) studies and 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included (384 patients). The pooled short-term mortality from observational studies was 46.5% (95%-CI: 42.7–50.3%); this was 48.9% (95%-CI: 43.8–54.1%) amongst PSM studies and RCTs. The pooled mortality at 90 days, 6 months and 1 year was 41.8%, 51.1% and 54.3%, respectively. Hemolysis and access-site bleeding were the most common complications, each with a pooled incidence of around 20%. The reported mortality rate of microaxial LVADs was not significantly lower than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP). Current evidence does not suggest any mortality benefit when compared to ECMO or IABP.

Novel therapeutic strategies to reduce reperfusion injury after acute myocardial infarction

For almost 30 years, urgent revascularization termed primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has been a cornerstone of modern care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). It lowers mortality and improved cardiovascular outcome compared to conservative therapy including thrombolysis. Reperfusion injury, which occurs after successful re-opening of the formerly occluded coronary artery, had been exploited as a potential therapeutic target. When revascularisation became faster and pPCI was successfully performed within 60-90 minutes of symptom onset, the interest in a potential additive effect of targeting reperfusion injury vanished. More recently, several meta-analyses indicated that limiting reperfusion injury prevents microvascular obstruction and reduces final infarct size, thereby lowering the probability of heart failure events and improving quality of life in AMI survivors. Here, we describe the current strategies to limit reperfusion injury and to improve post-AMI outcomes such as systemic or intracoronary hypothermia, left-ventricular unloading, intracoronary infusion of super-saturated oxygen, intermittent coronary sinus occlusion, and C-reactive protein apharesis.

Manual compression versus MANTA device for access management after impella removal on the ICU

To compare the safety and efficacy of manual compression versus use of the MANTA closure device for access management after Impella removal on the intensive care unit (ICU). The number of patients treated with percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), namely Impella and ECMO, for complex cardiac procedures or shock, is growing. However, removal of pLVAD and large bore arteriotomy closure among such patients on the ICU remains challenging, since it is associated with a high risk for bleeding and vascular complications. Patients included in a prospective registry between 2017 and 2020 were analyzed. Bleeding and vascular access site complications were assessed and adjudicated according to VARC-2 criteria. We analyzed a cohort of 87 consecutive patients, who underwent access closure after Impella removal on ICU by using either the MANTA device or manual compression. The cohort´s mean age was 66.1 ± 10.7 years and 76 patients (87%) were recovering from CS. Mean support time was 40 h (interquartile range 24–69 h). MANTA was used in 31 patients (35.6%) and manual compression was applied in 56 patients (64.4%). Overall access related bleedings were significantly lower in the MANTA group (6.5% versus 39.3% (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% CI 0.01–0.50; p = 0.001), and there was no significant difference in vascular complications between the two groups (p = 0.55). Our data suggests that the application of the MANTA device directly on the ICU is safe. In addition, it seems to reduce access related bleeding without increasing the risk of vascular complications.

Escalating and De-escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

Evolving Presentation of Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of the Medical Literature and Current Practices

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cardiovascular disease. In the past, acute myocardial infarction was the leading cause of CS. However, in recent years, other etiologies, such as decompensated chronic heart failure, arrhythmia, valvular disease, and post-cardiotomy, each with distinct hemodynamic profiles, have risen in prevalence. The number of treatment options, particularly with regard to device-mediated therapy has also increased. In this review, we sought to survey the medical literature and provide an update on current practices.

PRospective REgistry of PAtients in REfractory cardiogenic shock-The PREPARE CardShock registry

Aim

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a hemodynamically complex multisystem syndrome associated with persistently high morbidity and mortality. As CS is characterized by progressive failure to provide adequate systemic perfusion, supporting end‐organ perfusion using mechanical circulatory support (MCS) seems intriguing. Since most patients with CS present in the catheterization laboratory, percutaneously implantable systems have the widest adoption in the field. We evaluated feasibility, outcomes, and complications after the introduction of a full‐percutaneous program for both the Impella CP device and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (VA‐ECMO).

Methods

PREPARE CardShock (PRospective REgistry of PAtients in REfractory cardiogenic shock) is a prospective single‐center registry, including 248 consecutive patients between May 2019 and April 2021, who underwent cardiac catheterization and displayed advanced cardiogenic shock. The median age was 70 (58–77) years and 28% were female. Sixty‐five percent of the cases had cardiac arrest, of which 66% were out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. A local standard operating procedure (SOP) indicating indications as well as relative and absolute contraindications for different means of MCS (Impella CP or VA‐ECMO) was used to guide MCS use. The primary endpoint was in‐hospital death and secondary endpoints were spontaneous myocardial infarction and major bleedings during the hospital stay.

Results

Overall mortality was 50.4% with a median survival of 2 (0–6) days. Significant independent predictors of mortality were cardiac arrest during the index event (odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.53 [1.43–4.51]; p = 0.001), age > 65 years (OR: 2.05 [1.03–4.09]; p = 0.036]), pH < 7.30 (OR: 2.69 [1.56–4.66]; p < 0.001), and lactate levels > 2 mmol/L (OR: 4.51 [2.37–8.65]; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Conclusive SOPs assist target‐orientated MCS use in CS. This study provides guidance on the implementation, validation, and modification of newly established MCS programs to aid centers that are establishing such programs.

Rational and Initiative of the Impella in Cardiac Surgery (ImCarS) Register Platform

OBJECTIVES

 Cardiac support systems are being used increasingly more due to the growing prevalence of heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Reducing cardiac afterload, intracardiac pressure, and flow support are important factors. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and intracardiac microaxial pump systems (Impella) as non-permanent MCS (mechanical circulatory support) are being used increasingly.

METHODS

 We reviewed the recent literature and developed an international European registry for non-permanent MCS.

RESULTS

 Life-threatening conditions that are observed preoperatively often include reduced left ventricular function, systemic hypoperfusion, myocardial infarction, acute and chronic heart failure, myocarditis, and valve vitia. Postoperative complications that are commonly observed include severe systemic inflammatory response, ischemia-reperfusion injury, trauma-related disorders, which ultimately may lead to low cardiac output (CO) syndrome and organ dysfunctions, which necessitates a prolonged ICU stay. Choosing the appropriate device for support is critical. The management strategies and complications differ by system. The "heart-team" approach is inevitably needed.However despite previous efforts to elucidate these topics, it remains largely unclear which patients benefit from certain systems, when is the right time to initiate (MCS), which support system is appropriate, what is the optimal level and type of support, which therapeutic additive and supportive strategies should be considered and ultimately, what are the future prospects and therapeutic developments.

CONCLUSION

 The European cardiac surgical register ImCarS has been established as an IIT with the overall aim to evaluate data received from the daily clinical practice in cardiac surgery. Interested colleagues are cordially invited to join the register.

CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

 DRKS00024560.

POSITIVE ETHICS VOTE

 AZ 246/20 Faculty of Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University-Gießen.

Incidence and Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock as a bridge to recovery or bridge to decision to advanced heart failure therapies. Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication that can be catastrophic. Because of the paucity of data describing the association of GIB with pMCS, we analyzed this population using the United States National Inpatient Sample database. We performed a retrospective study in patients with pMCS devices who had GIB during the index hospitalization using the National Inpatient Sample. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of GIB in these patients. A total of 466,627 patients were included. We observed an overall increase in the incidence of adjusted GIB from 2.9% to 3.5% (p = 0.0025) from 2005 to 2014. In comparison to patients without GIB, those with GIB had significantly higher in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and hospitalization cost. In addition to the usual co-morbid conditions, the presence of small bowel and colonic ischemia, colon cancer, diverticulosis, chronic liver disease, and peptic ulcer disease were noted to be significant predictors of GIB for all (p <0.001). In conclusion, patients with pMCS and GIB have higher in-hospital mortality, longer length of stay, and higher cost of hospitalization. Awareness of patient risk factors for bleeding and gastrointestinal disorders are important before the use of mechanical circulatory support devices because they are associated with a substantially higher risk for bleeding.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Objective

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a high rate of mortality and disabling morbidity. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is seldom considered in this setting due to the fear of peri-operative complications. Here, we analysed the outcome of CS patients undergoing CABG within 48 hours after diagnosed with AMI.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective data analysis was performed in 220 AMI patients with CS that underwent CABG within 48 hours between 01/2001 and 01/2018.

Results

141 patients were diagnosed with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 79 with non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Median age was 67 (60; 72) for STEMI, and 68 (60.8; 75.0) years for NSTEMI patients (p = 0.190). 52.5% of STEMI patients and 39.2% of NSTEMI patients had suffered from cardiac arrest (CA) pre-operatively (p = 0.049). Coronary 3-vessel disease was present in most patients (78.0% STEMI vs 83.5% NSTEMI; p = 0.381). Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) were performed in 32.6% STEMI and 27.8% NSTEMI patients (p = 0.543) prior to surgery. Time from diagnosis to surgery was shorter in STEMI patients (3.92 (2.67; 5.98) vs 7.50 (4.78; 16.74) hours; p < 0.001). A complete revascularization was achieved in 82.3% of STEMI and 73.4% of NSTEMI cases (p = 0.116). Post-operative low cardiac output occurred in 14.2% of STEMI vs 8.9% of NSTEMI patients (p = 0.289). The rate of cerebrovascular injury-including hypoxic brain damage was 12.1% for STEMI and 10.1% among NSTEMI patients. (p = 0.825). 30-day mortality was 32.6% after STEMI vs 31.6% in NSTEMI cases (p = 0.285).

Conclusions

In contrast to the discouraging data concerning the role of PCI in AMI patients with CS and complex coronary artery disease, CABG may represent a treatment option worth considering.

Predictive value of the APACHE II score in cardiogenic shock patients treated with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device

Background

The APACHE II score assesses patient prognosis in intensive care units. Different disease entities are predictable by using a specific factor called Diagnostic Category Weight (DCW). We aimed to validate the prognostic value of the APACHE II score in patients treated with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device because of refractory cardiogenic shock (CS).

Methods

From the Dresden Impella Registry, we analyzed 180 patients receiving an Impella CP®. The main outcome was the observed intrahospital mortality (S^(thosp)), which was compared to the predicted mortality estimated by the APACHE II score.

Results

The APACHE II score, which was 33.5 ± 0.6, significantly overestimated intrahospital mortality (S^(thosp) 54.4 ± 3.7% vs. APACHE II 74.6 ± 1.6%; p < 0.001). Nevertheless, the APACHE II score showed an acceptable accuracy to predict intrahospital mortality (ROC AUC 0.70; 95% CI 0.62–0.78). Thus, we adapted the formula for calculation of predicted mortality by adjusting DCW. The total registry cohort was randomly divided into derivation group for calculation of adjusted DCW and validation group for testing. Intrahospital mortality was much more precisely predicted using the adjusted DCW compared to the conventional DCW (difference of predicted and observed mortality: –4.7 ± 2.4% vs. –23.2 ± 2.3%; p < 0.001). The new calculated DCW was −1.183 for the total cohort.

Conclusion

The APACHE II score has an acceptable accuracy for the prediction of intrahospital mortality but overestimates its total amount in CS patients. Adjustment of the DCW can lead to a much more precise prediction of prognosis.

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite prompt revascularization, in particular, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for patients with CS related to AMI remains unacceptably high. Differently form a hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested for AMI–CS patients, based on the results of recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in the case of their early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of the current evidence on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of different types of MCS devices and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

Single center first year experience and outcomes with Impella 5.5 left ventricular assist device

Background

The Impella 5.5® was approved by the FDA for use for mechanical circulatory support up to 14 days in late 2019 at limited centers in the United States. Our single center’s experience with Impella 5.5® can expand the overall understanding for achieving successful patient outcomes as well as provide support for the expansion of its FDA-approved use.

Methods

This study is an IRB-approved single-center retrospective cohort analysis of hospitalized adult patient characteristics and outcomes in cases where the Impella 5.5® was utilized for mechanical circulatory support.

Results

A total of 26 implanted Impella 5.5® devices were identified in 24 hospitalized patients at our institution from January 2020 to January 2021. The overall survival rate during index hospitalization was 75%. Eleven Impella 5.5® devices were identified in 10 patients with an average device implantation greater than 14 days. Average device implantation for this subgroup was 27 days with a range of 15–80 days. Survival rate for Impella 5.5® use greater than 14 days was 67%. In the entire cohort and subgroup of device implantation > 14 days, evidence of end organ damage improved with Impella 5.5® use. Complications in our cohort and subgroup of device implantation > 14 days were similar to previously reported complication incidence of axillary inserted LVAD devices.

Conclusions

Our institution’s experience with the Impella 5.5® has been strongly positive with favorable outcomes and helps to establish the Impella 5.5® as a viable option for mechanical circulatory support beyond 14 days.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01871-1.

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: a critical appraisal

INTRODUCTION

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encounter in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD).

AREAS COVERED

Despite prompt revascularization, in particular percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for CS related to AMI remains high. Differently from hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested in AMI-CS patients, based on the results of a recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have raised as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in case of an early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of current evidences on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of MCS devices, and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

Emerging observational experience suggested that an early implantation of MCS (prior to PCI), the performance of an extensive revascularization and the implementation of shock teams and networks are key factors for improving clinical outcomes.

Acute myocardial infarction with simultaneous total occlusion of the left anterior descending artery and right coronary artery successfully treated with percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous thrombosis in more than one coronary artery is an uncommon angiographic finding in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. It is difficult to identify using 12-lead electrocardiography and usually leads to cardiogenic shock and fatal outcomes, including sudden cardiac death. Therefore, immediate revascularization and adequate mechanical circulatory support are required.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report the case of a 58-year-old man who presented with vomiting and chest pain complicated by cardiogenic shock and complete atrioventricular block. Electrocardiography revealed ST-segment elevation in leads II, III, aVF, and V1-V6. Emergency coronary angiography revealed total occlusion of the proximal left anterior descending artery and right coronary artery. The patient successfully underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with ballooning and stenting for both arteries. An Impella CP was inserted during the procedure. Fifty-seven days after admission, he had New York Heart Association class II heart failure and was transferred to a rehabilitation hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute double-vessel coronary thrombosis, a serious event with a high mortality rate, requires prompt diagnosis and management to prevent complications such as cardiogenic shock and ventricular arrhythmias. A combination of judicious medical treatment, efficient primary percutaneous coronary intervention, and early mechanical support device insertion is crucial to improve the survival rate of patients with this disease.