IMPELLA® or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

PURPOSE

Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases through 27 August 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSMs). We conducted frequentist network meta-analysis, investigating mortality (either 30 days or in-hospital) as the primary outcome. We assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool/Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and as sensitivity analysis reconstructed survival data from published survival curves for a one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using a stratified Cox model.

RESULTS

We included 38 studies (48,749 patients), mostly reporting on patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stages C-E cardiogenic shock. Compared with no MCS, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump (ECMO-IABP; network odds ratio [OR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86, moderate certainty) was associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in mortality between ECMO, IABP, microaxial ventricular assist device (mVAD), ECMO-mVAD, centrifugal VAD, or mVAD-IABP and no MCS (all very low certainty). Our one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis based on the stratified Cox model found only ECMO-IABP was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, HR, 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66).

CONCLUSION

In patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality. However, this must be interpreted within the context of inter-study heterogeneity and limited certainty of evidence.

Modelling and Simulation of the Combined Use of IABP and Impella as a Rescue Procedure in Cardiogenic Shock: An Alternative for Non-Transplant Centres?

The treatment of critically ill patients remains an evolving and controversial issue. Mechanical circulatory support through a percutaneous approach for the management of cardiogenic shock has taken place in recent years. The combined use of IABP and the Impella 2.5 device may have a role to play for this group of patients. A simulation approach may help with a quantitative assessment of the achievable degree of assistance. In this paper, we analyse the interaction between the Impella 2.5 pump applied as the LVAD and IABP using the numerical simulator of the cardiovascular system developed in our laboratory. Starting with pathological conditions reproduced using research data, the simulations were performed by setting different rotational speeds for the LVAD and driving the IABP in full mode (1:1) or partial mode (1:2, 1:3 and 1:4). The effects induced by drug administration during the assistance were also simulated. The haemodynamic parameters under investigation were aa follows: mean aortic pressure, systolic and diastolic aortic pressure, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, mean left and right atrial pressure, cardiac output, cardiac index, left and right ventricular end-systolic volume, left ventricular end-diastolic volume and mean coronary blood flow. The energetic variables considered in this study were as follows: left and right ventricular external work and left and right atrial pressure-volume area. The outcome of our simulations shows that the combined use of IABP and Impella 2.5 achieves adequate support in the acute phase of cardiogenic shock compared to each standalone device. This would allow further stabilisation and transfer to a transplant centre should the escalation of treatment be required.

Acute coronary syndrome associated cardiogenic shock in the catheterization laboratory: peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator management and recommendations

Cardiogenic shock (CS) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a critical disease with high mortality rates requiring complex treatment to maximize patient survival chances. Emergent coronary revascularization along with circulatory support are keys to saving lives. Mechanical circulatory support may be instigated in severe, yet still reversible instances. Of these, the peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (pVA-ECMO) is the most widely used system for both circulatory and respiratory support. The aim of our work is to provide a review of our current understanding of the pVA-ECMO when used in the catheterization laboratory in a CS ACS setting. We detail the workings of a Shock Team: pVA-ECMO specifics, circumstances, and timing of implantations and discuss possible complications. We place emphasis on how to select the appropriate patients for potential pVA-ECMO support and what characteristics and parameters need to be assessed. A detailed, stepwise implantation algorithm indicating crucial steps is also featured for practitioners in the catheter laboratory. To provide an overall aspect of pVA-ECMO use in CS ACS we further gave pointers including relevant human resource, infrastructure, and consumables management to build an effective Shock Team to treat CS ACS via the pVA-ECMO method.

Severe Left Ventricular Failure Unmanageable by Impella 5.0

Mechanical circulatory support can be beneficial for patients with cardiogenic shock. Of these, the Impella has recently become the first-line device due to its feasibility, minimal invasiveness, and efficacy. We had a 58-year-old male with acute myocardial infarction followed by cardiogenic shock. We initially placed the patient on intra-aortic balloon pumping, which was switched to Impella 2.5 and could stabilize him. Unfortunately, the Impella 2.5 device suddenly stopped on the fifth day, thus, we tried to manage him by inotropes. However, his condition gradually deteriorated, so we applied Impella 5.0. Although his systemic circulation could be maintained, severe pulmonary hypertension persisted on Impella 5.0. He developed flash pulmonary edema, thus, we emergently added venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on Impella 5.0 (ECPELLA). Then, we removed Impella 5.0 and changed peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to central venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this central venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, we inserted the cannulas in the pulmonary artery and the left ventricle in addition to the usual cannulas in the ascending aorta and the right atrium. We aimed to control pulmonary arterial blood flow for lung protection as well as left ventricular unloading by this modification. However, his cardiac function showed no signs of recovery, and his lung condition showed further exacerbation. He was complicated by fungal sepsis and finally died of multi-organ failure. Although the Impella is an option, it is crucial to evaluate patients' condition carefully and to escalate the device, if needed, without delay.

Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses

Impella and VA-ECMO are two possible therapeutic courses for the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The study aims to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analyses of a comprehensive set of clinical and socio-economic outcomes observed when using Impella or VA-ECMO with patients under CS. A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, and Web of Science databases on 21 February 2022. Nonoverlapping studies with adult patients supported for CS with Impella or VA-ECMO were searched. Study designs including RCTs, observational studies, and economic evaluations were considered. Data on patient characteristics, type of support, and outcomes were extracted. Additionally, meta-analyses were performed on the most relevant and recurring outcomes, and results shown using forest plots. A total of 102 studies were included, 57% on Impella, 43% on VA-ECMO. The most common outcomes investigated were mortality/survival, duration of support, and bleeding. Ischemic stroke was lower in patients treated with Impella compared to the VA-ECMO population, with statistically significant difference. Socio-economic outcomes including quality of life or resource use were not reported in any study. The study highlighted areas where further data collection is needed to clarify the value of complex, new technologies in the treatment of CS that will enable comparative assessments focusing both on the health impact on patient outcomes and on the financial burden for government budgets. Future studies need to fill the gap to comply with recent regulatory updates at the European and national levels.

IABP versus Impella Support in Cardiogenic Shock: “In Silico” Study

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is part of a clinical syndrome consisting of acute left ventricular failure causing severe hypotension leading to inadequate organ and tissue perfusion. The most commonly used devices to support patients affected by CS are Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), Impella 2.5 pump and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. The aim of this study is the comparison between Impella and IABP using CARDIOSIM© software simulator of the cardiovascular system. The results of the simulations included baseline conditions from a virtual patient in CS followed by IABP assistance in synchronised mode with different driving and vacuum pressures. Subsequently, the same baseline conditions were supported by the Impella 2.5 with different rotational speeds. The percentage variation with respect to baseline conditions was calculated for haemodynamic and energetic variables during IABP and Impella assistance. The Impella pump driven with a rotational speed of 50,000 rpm increased the total flow by 4.36% with a reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) by ≅15% to ≅30%. A reduction in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) by ≅10% to ≅18% (≅12% to ≅33%) was observed with IABP (Impella) assistance. The simulation outcome suggests that assistance with the Impella device leads to higher reduction in LVESV, LVEDV, left ventricular external work and left atrial pressure-volume loop area compared to IABP support.

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.

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.

Budget Impact Analysis of Impella CP® Utilization in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock in France: A Health Economic Analysis

Introduction

Early detection and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) is crucial to avoid irreparable multiorgan damage and mortality. Impella CP^® is a novel temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device associated with greater hemodynamic support and significantly fewer device-related complications compared with other MCS devices, e.g., intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). The present study evaluated the budget impact of introducing Impella CP versus IABP and VA-ECMO in patients with CS following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) in France.

Methods

A budget impact model was developed to compare the cost of introducing Impella CP with continuing IABP and VA-ECMO treatment from a Mandatory Health Insurance (MHI) perspective in France over a 5-year time horizon, with 700 patients with refractory CS assumed to be eligible for treatment per year. Costs associated with Impella CP and device-related complications for all interventions were captured and clinical input data were based on published sources. Scenario analyses were performed around key parameters.

Results

Introducing Impella CP was associated with cumulative cost savings of EUR 2.7 million over 5 years, versus continuing current clinical practice with IABP and VA-ECMO. Cost savings were achieved in every year of the analysis and driven by the lower incidence of device-related complications with Impella CP, with estimated 5-year cost savings of EUR 22.4 million due to avoidance of complications. Total cost savings of more than EUR 250,000 were projected in the first year of the analysis, which increased as the market share of Impella CP was increased. Scenario analyses indicated that the findings of the analysis were robust.

Conclusion

Treatment with Impella CP in adult patients aged less than 75 years in a state of refractory CS following an MI was projected to lead to substantial cost savings from an MHI perspective in France, compared with continuing current clinical practice.