Feasibility and long-term safety of elective Impella-assisted high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a pilot two-centre study

Ventricular Unloading Using the ImpellaTM Device in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a leading cause of hospital death. However, the use of mechanical circulatory support has fundamentally changed CS management over the last decade and is rapidly increasing. In contrast to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as well as counterpulsation with an intraaortic balloon pump, ventricular unloading by the Impella™ device actively reduces ventricular volume as well as pressure and augments systemic blood flow at the same time. By improving myocardial oxygen supply and enhancing systemic circulation, the Impella device potentially protects myocardium, facilitates ventricular recovery and may interrupt the shock spiral. So far, the evidence supporting the use of Impella™ in CS patients derives mostly from observational studies, and there is a need for adequate randomized trials. However, the Impella™ device appears a promising technology for management of CS patients. But a profound understanding of the device, its physiologic impact and clinical application are all important when evaluating CS patients for percutaneous circulatory support. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the percutaneous assist device Impella™. Moreover, it highlights in depth the rationale for ventricular unloading in CS and describes practical aspects to optimize care for patients requiring hemodynamic support.

Temporary extracorporeal femoro-femoral crossover bypass to treat acute limb ischemia due to occlusive femoral transaortic microaxial left ventricular assist device - A novel technique and case series

BACKGROUND

The Impella transaortic microaxial left ventricular assist device (MLVAD) bears the risk of severe ipsilateral limb ischemia due to its percutaneous insertion through the common femoral artery (CFA). As long as the MLVAD is required for cardio - circulatory support, treatment options are limited. Therefore, we developed a temporary extracorporeal femoral - femoral crossover bypass to restore and maintain perfusion of the affected leg.

METHODS

From October 2018, we treated all patients with severe limb ischemia due to the MLAVD with a femoral - femoral crossover bypass. For comparison, a consecutive cohort of patients undergoing placement of the MLAVD between January 2011 and October 2018 was identified. The primary outcome is the feasibility and safety of our percutaneously established extracorporeal femoral - femoral crossover bypass.

RESULTS

Between January 2011 and July 2019, 25 of 245 (10.3%) patients developed a severe ipsilateral limb ischemia following the MLVAD placement. Until October 2018, 20 patients were treated conventionally (C - cohort) and since October 2018, five (consecutive) patients have been treated by an extracorporeal femoral - femoral cross over bypass (BP - Cohort). Following the BP - procedure, an immediate improvement of the perfusion was seen in all patients. Limb salvage was documented in 100% of our patients and 30 - day mortality was 60% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

This is the first case series reporting on this novel technique. We demonstrated that the percutaneous creation of an extracorporeal crossover bypass is feasible, safe and effective and should therefore be promoted.

Left Ventricle Architecture and Valvular Integrity Following Microaxial Mechanical Support: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study

Although the use of microaxilar mechanical circulatory support systems may improve the outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), little is known about its effect on the long-term structural integrity of left ventricular (LV) valves as well as on the development of LV-architecture. Therefore, we aimed to study the integrity of the LV valves and architecture and function after Impella support. Thus, 84 consecutive patients were monitored over two years having received Impella^TM CP (n = 24) or 2.5 (n = 60) for refractory CS (n = 62) or for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (n = 22) followed by optimal medical treatment. Beside a significant increase in LV ejection fraction after two years (p ≤ 0.03 vs. pre-implantation), we observed a statistically significant decrease in LV dilation (p < 0.001) and severity of mitral valve regurgitation (p = 0.007) in the two-year follow-up period, suggesting an improved LV architecture. Neither the duration of support, nor the size of the Impella device or the indication for its use revealed any devastating impact on aortic or mitral valve integrity. These findings indicate that Impella device is a safe means of support of LV-function without detrimental long-term effects on the structural integrity of LV valves regardless of the size of the device or the indication of support.

Fill Two Needs With One Deed! Single-Access Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Impella Hemodynamic Support

This report describes the case of a 64-year-old man who presented with acute coronary syndrome, depressed left ventricular function, and triple vessel disease on angiogram. The patient refused surgery and underwent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention through the Impella sheath (Abiomed, Danvers, MA). This is one of the first known cases of single-access protected percutaneous coronary intervention, an innovative technique that brings into consideration the importance of dual vascular access via the Impella sheath.

Vascular complications associated with percutaneous left ventricular assist device placement: A 10-year US perspective

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, there has been a significant increase in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices(p-LVADs). p-LVADs are being increasingly used during complex coronary interventions and for acute cardiogenic shock. These large bore percutaneous devices have a higher risk of vascular complications. We examined the vascular complication rates from the use of p-LVAD in a national database.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the National In-patient Sample (NIS) dataset from 2005 till 2015. We used the ICD-9-CM procedure codes 37.68 and 37.62 for p-LVAD placement regardless of indications. We investigated common vascular complications, defining them by the validated ICD 9 CM codes. χ² test and t test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 31,263 p-LVAD placements were identified during the period studied. A majority of patients were male (72.68%) and 64.44% were white. The overall incidence of vascular complications was 13.53%, out of which 56% required surgical treatment. Acute limb thromboembolism and bleeding requiring transfusion accounted for 27.6% and 21.8% of all vascular complications. Occurrence of a vascular complication was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality (37.77% vs. 29.95%, p < .001), length of stay (22.7 vs. 12.2 days, p < .001) and cost of hospitalization ($ 161,923 vs. $ 95,547, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high incidence of vascular complications with p-LVAD placement including need for vascular surgery. These complications are associated with a higher in-hospital, LOS and hospitalization costs. These findings should be factored into the decision-making for p-LVAD placement.

Long-Term Outcomes of Extent of Revascularization in Complex High Risk and Indicated Patients Undergoing Impella-Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Report from the Roma-Verona Registry

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of extent of revascularization in complex high-risk indicated patients (CHIP) undergoing Impella-protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Complete revascularization has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes. However, the impact of more complete revascularization during Impella-protected PCI in CHIP has not been reported.

METHODS

A total of 86 CHIP undergoing elective PCI with Impella 2.5 or Impella CP between April 2007 and December 2016 from 2 high volume Italian centers were included. Baseline, procedural, and clinical outcomes data were collected retrospectively. Completeness of coronary revascularization was assessed using the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society myocardial jeopardy score (BCIS-JS) derived revascularization index (RI). The primary end-point was all-cause mortality. A multivariate regression model was used to identify independent predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

All patients had multivessel disease and were considered unsuitable for surgery. At baseline, 44% had left main disease, 78% had LVEF ≤ 35%, and mean BCIS-JS score was 10±2. The mean BCIS-JS derived RI was 0.7±0.2 and procedural complications were uncommon. At 14-month follow-up, all-cause mortality was 10.5%. At follow-up, 67.4% of CHIP had LVEF ≥ 35% compared to 22.1% before Impella protected-PCI. Higher BCIS-JS RI was significantly associated with LVEF improvement (p=0.002). BCIS-JS RI of ≤ 0.8 (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01- 0.92, and p = 0.042) was an independent predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the practice of percutaneous Impella use for protected PCI in CHIP. A more complete revascularization was associated with significant LVEF improvement and survival.

The Impella Device: Historical Background, Clinical Applications and Future Directions

The Impella device is a catheter-based miniaturized ventricular assist device. Using a retrograde femoral artery access, it is placed in the left ventricle across the aortic valve. The device pumps blood from left ventricle into ascending aorta and helps to maintain a systemic circulation at an upper rate between 2.5 and 5.0 L/min. This results in almost immediate and sustained unloading of the left ventricle, while increasing overall systemic cardiac output. The most common indications for using the Impella device are in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock and to facilitate high risk coronary angioplasty. Other indications include the treatment of cardiomyopathy with acute decompensation, postcardiotomy shock, and off-pump coronary bypass surgery. A growing body of observational and registry data suggest a potentially valuable role for the Impella system in reducing the mortality associated with cardiogenic shock. However, there are, as of yet, no randomized controlled trial data supporting this observation.

Unprotected versus protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 in patients with multivessel disease and severely reduced left ventricular function

Selecting a revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease (MVD) and severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains a challenge. PCI with Impella 2.5 may facilitate high-risk PCI, however long-term results comparing unprotected versus protected PCI are currently unknown. We sought to evaluate the outcome of patients undergoing protected compared to unprotected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of MVD and severely reduced LVEF.We included patients with MVD and severely reduced LVEF (≤35%) in this retrospective, single-centre study. Patients that underwent unprotected PCI before the start of a dedicated protected PCI program with Impella 2.5 were compared to patients that were treated with protected PCI after the start of the program. The primary endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) during a 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints consisted of in-hospital MACCE and adverse events.A total of 61 patients (mean age 70.7 ± 10.9 years, 83.6% male) were included in our study, of which 28 (45.9%) underwent protected PCI. The primary endpoint was reached by 26.7% and did not differ between groups (P = .90). In-hospital MACCE (P = 1.00) and in-hospital adverse events (P = .12) also demonstrated no significant differences. Multivariate logistic regression identified procedural success defined as complete revascularization and absence of in-hospital major clinical complications as protective parameter for MACCE (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.70, P = .02).Patients with MVD and severely depressed LVEF undergoing protected PCI with Impella 2.5 demonstrate similar in-hospital and one-year outcomes compared to unprotected PCI.

Impella-protected PCI: the clinical results achieved so far

The ability of interventional cardiologists to identify high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients, requires the integration of different features belonging to medical history, organ damage, coronary anatomy and the nature of the acute event. The selection of a subgroup of patients that could benefit from mechanical support during interventions is a key feature to success. The introduction of the Impella percutaneous axial pump have added an easy-to-set-up, less invasive and time-consuming active-support device to the interventional toolbox. Up to date, only few (four) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have tried to address the clinical efficacy of Impella assistance for the treatment of this very high-risk population, but several large registries and multiple observational studies have demonstrated its safety, feasibility and hemodynamic performance. Although the largest RCT (PROTECT II) have been prematurely stopped due to the risk of futility despite the evidence of more complete revascularization in the Impella arm, the need for an adequate operator's learning curve must be considered. More recent insights suggest an effect of the device in optimizing end-organ perfusion and improving crucial parameters like renal function. Furthermore, available data suggest that vary early Impella support may improve patient's outcome in case of cardiogenic shock.

The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Small randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have examined the effectiveness and safety of the Impella device, a percutaneous left ventricular assist device, in the setting of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, data are sparse and results are conflicting. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the Impella device in high-risk patients undergoing PCI via a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs and observational studies that evaluated the Impella device in high-risk patients undergoing PCI. Inclusion was restricted to studies in which ≥10 patients received the Impella device; both uncontrolled and controlled (versus intra-aortic-balloon pump [IABP]) studies were included.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies (4 RCTs, 2 controlled observational studies, and 14 uncontrolled observational studies; 1,287 patients) were included, with follow-up ranging from 1 to 42 months. The use of Impella resulted in improved procedural and hemodynamic characteristics in controlled and uncontrolled studies. In controlled studies, the 30-day rates of all-cause mortality and MACE were similar across groups. In most uncontrolled studies, the 30-day rates of all-cause mortality were generally low (range: 3.7%-10%), though rates of MACE were slightly higher (range: 5%-20%).

CONCLUSION

The Impella device was found to improve procedural and hemodynamic parameters, but only limited randomized data are available regarding clinical outcomes associated with its use. Large, multicenter RCTs are needed to definitively establish the effectiveness of the Impella device among high-risk PCI patients.

Real-world supported unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention with impella device; data from the USpella registry

BACKGROUND

Patients with left main (LM) coronary artery disease are increasingly being treated with percutaneous revascularization (PCI). The safety, feasibility, and efficacy of unprotected LM intervention (ULMI) with hemodynamic support by Impella device have not been evaluated previously.

OBJECTIVE

Using a large retrospective single center database from the USpella registry, we evaluated the safety, feasibility, and potential benefits of periprocedural left ventricular assist with axial flow Impella 2.5 and Impella CP (Abiomed Inc. Danvers, Mass) during ULMI.

METHODS

We analyzed a total of 127 consecutive patients who received hemodynamic support with Impella (2.5 or CP) for ULMI from August 2008 to July 2015. Safety, feasibility and efficacy end points included procedural success rates, in-hospital and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rates.

RESULTS

Among 127 patients who received hemodynamic support for ULMI (mean age 69.98 ± 10.7 years, 71% men, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction 28.74 ± 15.55%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons' mortality/morbidity 4/23%) the in-hospital and 30 days mortality rates were 1.43% (2/140) and 2.1% (3/141), respectively. The average baseline and post PCI (residual) syntax scores were 31.4 and 7.86, respectively, (P < 0.001). Only one patient (0.8%) had vascular complication that required surgery; 2.36% (3/127) had hematoma and 3.9% (5/127) had bleeding that required transfusion.

CONCLUSION

This large singe center retrospective evaluation of USpella registry substantiates and strongly supports the feasibility, safety, and hemodynamic usefulness of Impella device for ULMI with acceptable in-hospital and 30-day MACE rates. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Meta-Analysis of Usefulness of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Devices for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is often offered to patients with extensive coronary artery disease, decreased left ventricular function, and co-morbid conditions that increase surgical risk. In these settings, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PVADs) can be used for hemodynamic support. To assess the effects of PVAD use on mortality, myocardial infarction, and complication rates in patients undergoing high-risk PCI, we systematically searched the electronic databases, MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane for prospective controlled trials and cohort studies of patients that received hemodynamic support with PVADs for high-risk PCI. The primary outcome measures were 30-day all-cause mortality, 30-day myocardial infarction rates, periprocedural major bleeding, and vascular complications. We included 12 studies with 1,346 participants who underwent Impella 2.5 L device placement and 8 cohort studies with 205 patients that received TandemHeart device for high-risk PCI. Short-term mortality rates were 3.5% and 8% and major bleeding rates were 7.1% and 3.6% with Impella and TandemHeart, respectively. Both devices are associated with comparable periprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk PCI.

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

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

Full neurologic recovery and return of spontaneous circulation following prolonged cardiac arrest facilitated by percutaneous left ventricular assist device

Sudden cardiac arrest is associated with high early mortality, which is largely related to postcardiac arrest syndrome characterized by an acute but often transient decrease in left ventricular (LV) function. The stunned LV provides poor cardiac output, which compounds the initial global insult from hypoperfusion. If employed early, an LV assist device (LVAD) may improve survival and neurologic outcome; however, traditional methods of augmenting LV function have significant drawbacks, limiting their usefulness in the periarrest period. Full cardiac support with cardiopulmonary bypass is not always readily available but is increasingly being studied as a tool to intensify resuscitation. There have been no controlled trials studying the early use of percutaneous LVADs (pLVADs) in pericardiac arrest patients or intra-arrest as a bridge to return of spontaneous circulation. This article presents a case study and discussion of a patient who arrested while undergoing an elective coronary angioplasty and suffered prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation. During resuscitation, treatment included placement of a pLVAD and initiation of therapeutic hypothermia. The patient made a rapid and full recovery.

Percutaneous management of vascular access in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using stent-based bioprostheses has recently emerged as a promising alternative to surgical valve replacement in selected patients. The main route for TAVI is retrograde access from the femoral artery using large sheaths (16-24 F). Vascular access complications are a clinically relevant issue in TAVI procedures since they are reported to occur in up to one fourth of patients and are strongly associated with adverse outcomes. In the present paper, we review the different types of vascular access site complications associated with transfemoral TAVI. Moreover, we discuss the possible optimal management strategies with particular attention to the relevance of early diagnosis and prompt treatment using endovascular techniques.

High-risk acute coronary syndrome in a patient with coronary subclavian steal syndrome secondary to critical subclavian artery stenosis

Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease are more likely to have extensive atherosclerosis that involves other major arteries. Critical subclavian artery (SCA) stenosis can result in coronary subclavian steal syndrome that may present as recurrent ischemia and even myocardial infarction in patients with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). In patients with concomitant severe native coronary disease, occluded saphenous venous grafts (SVG) to other arteries, percutaneous intervention on critical subclavian artery (SCA) stenosis that will compromise the blood flow to left internal mammary graft (LIMA) and left anterior descending (LAD) artery will be a high-risk procedure and may be associated with cardiogenic shock, especially in patients with preexisting ischemic cardiomyopathy. The use of percutaneous left ventricular (LV) assist device like Impella will offer better hemodynamic support and coronary perfusion and therefore results in decreased myocardial damage, maximized residual cardiac function, and lower incidence of cardiogenic shock.

Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support (Impella) in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and/or Cardiogenic Shock Not Eligible to PROTECT II Trial

PROTECT I and II trials have tested the efficacy of Impella in patents with high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, patients with severe hemodynamic instability such as cardiac arrest, ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), or cardiogenic shock were excluded. The objective was to investigate the efficacy of Impella in sicker patient population who were not included in PROTECT trials. These patients merit high-risk PCI who had cardiogenic shock and unstable or decompensated heart failure (HF). From December 2010 to March 2012, 10 consecutive patients with extremely high surgical risk and hemodynamic instability underwent urgent PCI with Impella 2.5 support (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA). These patients were presented with advance HF and/or cardiogenic shock. Among the 10 included patients, 3 patients were with cardiac arrest and 1 patient was with acute myocardial infarction. All patients had successful Impella implantation and remained hemodynamically stable during high-risk PCI. Among the 10 patients 2 patients (20%) died within 1 month and 1 patient developed limb ischemia. In high-risk population nonrandomizable to PROTECT trials with advance HF/cardiogenic shock, Impella could be an important tool for hemodynamic support to PCI or could be a bridge to left ventricle assist device to achieve good recovery. Larger studies need to be conducted on this high-risk population.

Economic and Operational Implications of a Standardized Approach to Hemodynamic Support Therapy Using Percutaneous Cardiac Assist Devices

Objective

Impella 2.5 has been shown to reduce major adverse events for patients undergoing elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed a single-center retrospective study to compare the costs and resource use of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support.

Methods

All high-risk patients who received Impella 2.5 (n = 35) and IABP (n = 295) support from December 2008 to July 2011 were included. Propensity score matching identified a balanced 1:1 matched cohort (35 Impella vs 35 IABP) based on indications for implantation, preimplantation hemodynamics, and age. Diagnostic, procedural, financial, and resource use data were collected.

Results

As compared with IABP, Impella offered a more predictable course of treatment/resource consumption and was not associated with any extreme cost outliers (17.1% vs 0.0%, respectively; P = 0.025). The mean admission and 90-day episode of care total costs for Impella were 5.5% ($67,681 vs $71,608, P = 0.79) and 4.2% ($70,680 vs $73,476, P = 0.85) lesser than that for IABP, respectively. Although not statistically significant, Impella patients had a trend toward lower rehospitalization rates (11.4% vs 20%), lesser mean index length of hospital stay (11.2 vs 13.7), and 90-day (11.7 vs 14.2) episode of care length of hospital stay.

Conclusions

Impella support was associated with consistent course of treatment/resource consumption with significantly fewer 90-day extreme cost outliers than was IABP. The lower index and 90-day follow-up cost trends observed for Impella were driven by shorter length of hospital stay and fewer rehospitalizations. As providers strive to improve quality of care by reducing variability, these findings have implications for the development of hemodynamic support algorithms.

Usage of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Clinical Practice and High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Patients who require coronary revascularization and present with poor left ventricular function and complex coronary anatomy are at high risk for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Some of these patients are poor surgical candidates because of previous cardiac surgery or significant comorbidities. The recent approval and availability of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices has created an opportunity for the highest risk patients. This article reviews currently available mechanical circulatory support systems and portable extracorporeal oxygenation, describing hemodynamic and physiologic rationales, indications, strategies, and available evidence for their use in high risk PCI.

The cost-effectiveness of a new percutaneous ventricular assist device for high-risk PCI patients: mid-stage evaluation from the European perspective

OBJECTIVE

A new and smaller percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD, Impella, Abiomed, Danvers, MA) has been developed to provide circulatory support in hemodynamically unstable patients and to prevent hemodynamic collapse during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The objective of the study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this specific device compared to the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) from the European perspective. Additional analysis on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was conducted for observational purposes only, given its use in some European countries.

METHODS

A combination of a decision tree and Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the small, pVAD. The short-term (30-day) effectiveness and safety (early survival, risk of bleeding, and stroke) were modeled, as well as long-term risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure). The short-term effectiveness and safety data for the device were obtained from two registries (the Europella and USpella), both of which are large multi-center studies in high-risk patient groups. Probabilities of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events were obtained from various published clinical studies. The economic analysis was conducted from a German statutory health insurance perspective and only direct medical costs were included. Cost-effectiveness was estimated over a 10-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Compared with IABP, the pVAD generated an incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of 0.22 (with Euro-registry data) and 0.27 (with US-registry data). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the device varied between €38,069 (with Euro-registry data) and €31,727 (with US-registry data) per QALY compared with IABP.

KEY LIMITATIONS

Unadjusted, indirect comparisons of short-term effectiveness and safety between the interventions were used in the model. Cost and utility data were retrieved from various sources. Therefore, differences in patient populations may bias the estimated cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with IABP, the pVAD is a cost-effective intervention for high-risk PCI patients, with ICERs well-below the conventional cost-effectiveness threshold.

Use of impella ventricular assist device in patients with severe coronary artery disease presenting with cardiac arrest

Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is a percutaneously inserted ventricular assist device (VAD). It has been increasingly used in patients with severe heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and high-risk percutaneous intervention (PCI). However, the use and efficacy of Impella in patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with cardiac arrest has rarely been reported.The objective of this study is to report our center experience in using Impella VAD in CAD patients presenting with cardiac arrest. From December 2010 to March 2011, three patients with severe CAD presented to our center with cardiac arrest underwent PCI with Impella support. We reported three cases of severe CAD presenting with cardiac arrest successfully treated with PCI and Impella support. Our experience demonstrated that Impella VAD may play an adjunctive role in obtaining hemodynamic stability in these high-risk patients undergoing PCI. One of the patients was supported to left VAD implantation, and the other two had excellent neurological and functional recovery. Our reports suggest an important role of Impella in cardiac arrest population. Earlier Impella implantation after cardiac arrest might provide cardiac support and tissue perfusion until recovery or high-risk PCI.

The Duration of Impella 2.5 Circulatory Support and Length of Hospital Stay of Patients Undergoing High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Background

To evaluate the impact of duration of Impella 2.5 support (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) on hospitalization of patients after high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There has been a continuous increase in prevalence of coronary artery disease with more patients needing PCI during acute myocardial infarction. Some of these patients have to undergo high-risk revascularization with circulatory support like the Impella 2.5 device.

Methods

This study was a single center retrospective study of patients admitted to our hospital who required Impella circulatory support during percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients’ medical records, cardiac catheterization laboratory and 2-D echocardiography reports were reviewed to ascertain left ventricular ejection fraction, duration of Impella support, Coronary Care Unit (CCU) days and the length of stay in the hospital. A P-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Over a 15-month period, we had 25 patients with 19 males and 6 females. Mean age of the patient cohort was 68 ± 10 years. Mean LVEF of the group was 32 ± 16%. Mean length of hospital stay was 8 ± 8 days and mean CCU stay was 4 ± 4 days. The Impella was successfully inserted in all cases with a median duration of support of 70 minutes (range, 4 - 5760 minutes). Bleeding complication occurred in 8%. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the duration of Impella support and hospital stay was 0.49 (P = 0.023) while it was 0.71 (P = 0.001) between Impella support duration and CCU days.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that there is a positive correlation between the duration of Impella 2.5 circulatory support and hospital stay and/or CCU days. The correlation seems to be stronger with CCU days.

Percutaneous devices to support the left ventricle

This article will summarize the current status of three percutaneous left ventricular assist devices, review technical details involving device components and device insertion, discuss the hemodynamic changes that occur with device implantation and summarize published and ongoing clinical trials evaluating these devices in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and those with cardiogenic shock.

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices: new deus ex machina?

The development of ventricular assist devices has broadened the means with which one can treat acute heart failure. Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVAD) have risen from recent technological advances. They are smaller, easier, and faster to implant, all important qualities in the setting of acute heart failure. The present paper briefly describes the functioning and assets of the most common devices used today. It gives an overview of the current evidence and indications for left ventricular assist device use in cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Finally, extracorporeal life support devices are dealt with in the setting of hemodynamic support.

Use of the Impella 2.5 in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

The Impella 2.5 is a percutaneously placed partial circulatory assist device that is increasingly being used in high-risk coronary interventional procedures to provide hemodynamic support. The Impella 2.5 is able to unload the left ventricle rapidly and effectively and increase cardiac output more than an intra-aortic balloon catheter can. Potential complications include bleeding, limb ischemia, hemolysis, and infection. One community hospital's approach to establishing a multidisciplinary program for use of the Impella 2.5 is described.

Long-term safety and sustained left ventricular recovery: long-term results of percutaneous left ventricular support with Impella LP2.5 in ST-elevation myocardial infarction

AIMS

Mechanical left ventricular (LV) unloading may reduce infarct size when combined with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The Impella LP2.5 is a novel percutaneous left ventricular assist device. Although the short-term safety and feasibility of this device have been demonstrated, the long-term effects are unknown. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the long-term effects of the Impella LP2.5 support on the aortic valve and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 2006, 10 patients with anterior STEMI received 3-day support with the Impella LP2.5 after PCI. The control group consisted of 10 comparable patients, treated according to routine care. For the current study, echocardiography was performed and adverse events were recorded. Mean duration of follow-up was 2.9±0.6 years in the Impella group and 3.0±0.3 years in the control group. No differences in aortic valve abnormalities and LVEF were demonstrated between the groups; nevertheless, LVEF increase from baseline was significantly greater in Impella-treated patients (23.6±8.9% versus 6.7±7.0%, P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-day support with the Impella LP2.5 is not associated with adverse effects on the aortic valve at long-term follow-up. LVEF was similar in both groups; however, recovery was significantly greater in the Impella group.

The Impella ventricular assist device: use in patients at high risk for coronary interventions: successful multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in a 62-year-old high-risk patient

The Impella Recover LP 2.5 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is a ventricular assist device that is easily placed and has low adverse events. It helps unload myocardial demand and enables revascularization in patients who are otherwise at extreme risk for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It breaks the cycle of cardiogenic shock and is indicated in patients with low ejection fraction (EF), acute heart failure, and concurrent high-risk factors for intervention or surgery. Many case reports have been published regarding use of this device in high-risk PCIs, but successful intervention in two high-risk vessels in one setting has rarely been reported. We describe such a case report here where two critical lesions in LAD and circumflex arteries were successfully intervened on with the assistance of this device.

Interprovincial spoke-to-hub transport using the Impella Recover LP 5.0 left ventricular assist device as a bridge to long-term circulatory support

Current hospital administrative practices categorize health care centres in a network of&nbsp; 'spokes' (primary care centres) and 'hubs' (tertiary care centres). For the treatment of cardiogenic shock, long-term left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and transplant therapies are only used at a few hub centres nationwide and are, thus, only available to patients living in close proximity to these centres. The relatively lower technical requirements of the Impella Recover LP 5.0 LVAD (ABIOMED Inc, USA) translate into greater use by spoke centres for the short-term treatment of cardiogenic shock, and facilitate appropriate stabilization and subsequent transportation to a suitable hub centre. Based on a review of the literature, the present report describes the first case demonstrating successful use of the Impella Recover LP 5.0 LVAD, implanted under local anesthetic, for the purposes of interprovincial spoke-to-hub transport in a bridge-to-bridge-to-transplant procedure. By providing an economical and technically straightforward alternative to traditional extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, the present case demonstrates that less invasive LVADs are valuable to the spoke-and-hub model for delivery of specialized cardiac care.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices during cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions

Left ventricular assist devices were developed to support the function of a failing left ventricle. Owing to recent technological improvements, ventricular assist devices can be placed by percutaneous implantation techniques, which offer the advantage of fast implantation in the setting of acute left ventricular failure. This article reviews the growing evidence supporting the clinical use of left ventricular assist devices. Specifically, we discuss the use of left ventricular assist devices in patients with cardiogenic shock, in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction without shock, and during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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