Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock

Objectives

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with this support strategy have not been well described.

Methods

This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support from December 2020 to January 2023.

Results

A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival at 90 days postdischarge (P = .267) with similar destinations after support (P = .220). Patients with AMI-CS initially supported with VA-ECMO were less likely to survive 90 days postdischarge (P = .038) when compared with other cohorts. Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (P =.013; P = .030). Subanalysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated HF and de novo HF demonstrated no difference in survival or destination.

Conclusions

VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy. AMI-CS patients with initial VA-ECMO support have increased mortality in comparison to other cohorts. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy.

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.

A case series analysis on the clinical experience of Impella 5.5® at a large tertiary care centre

Aims

We aimed to detail the early clinical experience with pVAD 5.5 at a large academic medical centre. Impella® 5.5 (Abiomed) is a temporary peripherally inserted left ventricular assist device (pVAD) used for the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). This system has several modifications aimed at improving deliverability and durability over the pVAD 5.0 system, but real‐world experience with this device remains limited.

Methods and results

We collected clinical and outcome data on all patients supported with pVAD 5.5 at our centre between February and December 2020, including procedural and device‐related complications. Fourteen patients with pVAD 5.5 were included. Aetiology of CS was acute myocardial infarction (n = 6), decompensated heart failure (n = 6), suspected myocarditis (n = 1), and post‐cardiotomy CS (n = 1). Four patients received pVAD 5.5 after being on inotropes alone, two were escalated from intra‐aortic balloon pump, two were escalated from pVAD CP, and six patients were transitioned to pVAD 5.5 from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Median duration of pVAD 5.5 support was 12 (interquartile range 7, 25) days. Complications included axillary insertion site haematoma (n = 3), acute kidney injury (n = 3), severe thrombocytopenia (n = 1), and stroke (n = 1). No valve injury or limb complications occurred. Survival to device explant for recovery or transition to another therapy was 11/14 (79%) patients.

Conclusions

In this early experience of the pVAD 5.5, procedural and device‐related complications were observed but were manageable, and overall survival was high in this critically ill cohort, particularly when the device was used as a bridge to other therapies.

Cardiogenic shock: incidence, survival and mechanical circulatory support usage 2007-2017-insights from a national registry

Background

A central element in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) comprises mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems to maintain cardiac output (CO). This study aims to quantify incidence, outcome and influence of MCS in CS over the last decade.

Methods

All patients hospitalized with CS in a tertiary university hospital in Germany between 2007 and 2017 were identified utilizing the international coding system ICD-10 with code R57.0. Application of MCS was identified via German procedure classification codes (OPS).

Results

383,983 cases of cardiogenic shock were reported from 2007 to 2017. Patients had a mean age of 71 years and 38.5% were female. The incidence of CS rose by 65.6% from 26,828 cases in 2007 (33.1 per 100,000 person-years, hospital survival 39.2%) to 44,425 cases in 2017 (53.7 per 100,000 person-years, survival 41.2%). In 2007, 16.0% of patients with CS received MCS (4.6 per 100,000 person-years, survival 46.6%), dropping to 13.9% in 2017 (6.6 per 100,000 person-years, survival 38.6%). Type of MCS changed over the years, with decreasing use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), an increase in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) usage. Significant differences regarding in-hospital survival were observed between the devices (survival: overall: 40.2%; medical treatment = 39.5%; IABP = 49.5%; pVAD = 36.2%; VA-ECMO = 30.5%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The incidence of CS is increasing, but hospital survival remains low. MCS was used in a minority of patients, and the percentage of MCS usage in CS has decreased. The use rates of the competing devices change over time.

Graphical Abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00392-020-01781-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.