Proceedings of the 3rd annual Acute Cardiac Unloading and REcovery (A-CURE) symposium

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.

Comparison of Impella 5.0 and extracorporeal left ventricular assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock

INTRODUCTION

Choice of mechanical circulatory support to stabilize hemodynamics until cardiac recovery or next treatment is a strategic cornerstone for improving outcomes in patients with severe cardiogenic shock. We aimed to clarify the difference in treatment course and outcomes with the use of Impella 5.0 and an extracorporeal left ventricular assist device (eLVAD) in patients with cardiogenic shock refractory to medical therapy or other mechanical circulatory support.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective medical record review of consecutive patients who were implanted with Impella 5.0 or eLVAD as a bridge to decision at our medical center.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients (median age 40 years, 16 males) were analyzed. Of seven patients managed with Impella 5.0, the Impella 5.0 was removed successfully in two patients and five patients underwent surgery for durable LVAD implantation. Of 19 patients managed with eLVAD, the eLVAD was successfully removed in 3 patients, 9 patients required durable LVAD, and 7 patients died during eLVAD management. The period between Impella 5.0 or eLVAD implantation to durable LVAD surgery was significantly shorter with Impella 5.0 (58 vs 235 days, p = 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter and a significantly smaller amount of red blood cell transfusion was required with Impella 5.0 (149 vs 192 min, p = 0.042; 7.0 vs 15.0 units, p = 0.019). There were four massive stroke events with eLVAD, but no massive stroke event with Impella 5.0.

CONCLUSION

Impella 5.0 facilitates smoother management as a bridge to decision and reduces surgical invasiveness during durable LVAD implantation.