scholarly journals Pump flow setting and assessment of unloading in clinical practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_A) ◽  
pp. A23-A26
Author(s):  
Jacob Eifer Møller ◽  
Christian Hassager ◽  
Laurent Bonello ◽  
Clement Delmas ◽  
Federico Pappalardo
Keyword(s):  
Venous Catheter ◽  
Systemic Circulation ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Performance Level ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Arterial Line ◽  
Catheterization Laboratory ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
Pulmonary Artery Catheters ◽  
Va Ecmo

Abstract The rationale for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock is to restore cardiac output in selected patients when critically low or in case of refractory cardiac arrest. Furthermore, an MCS device that moves blood from either the left atrium or the left ventricle to the systemic circulation will potentially unload the ventricle. These devices are used alone or in combination with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). If a left-sided Impella device is used, it should be run at the highest possible performance level during treatment while avoiding suction events. When combined with VA-ECMO, the Impella device should be run at a lower performance level, ensuring sufficient left ventricular emptying but avoiding suction. Continuous monitoring is pivotal and patients managed outside the catheterization laboratory should be monitored with an arterial line, a central venous catheter, frequent use of pulmonary artery catheters and regular imaging by transthoracic echocardiogram.

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with concomitant Impella versus concomitant intra-aortic-balloon-pump for cardiogenic shock

Perfusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026765912110339
Author(s):  
Shek-yin Au ◽  
Ka-man Fong ◽  
Chun-Fung Sunny Tsang ◽  
Ka-Chun Alan Chan ◽  
Chi Yuen Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Queen Elizabeth Hospital ◽  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Va Ecmo

Introduction: The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella are left ventricular unloading devices with peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in place and later serve as bridging therapy when VA-ECMO is terminated. We aimed to determine the potential differences in clinical outcomes and rate of complications between the two combinations of mechanical circulatory support. Methods: This was a retrospective, single institutional cohort study conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) of Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong. Inclusion criteria included all patients aged ⩾18 years, who had VA-ECMO support, and who had left ventricular unloading by either IABP or Impella between January 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020. Patients <18 years old, with central VA-ECMO, who did not require left ventricular unloading, or who underwent surgical venting procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was ECMO duration. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in the ICU, hospital LOS, mortality, and complication rate. Results: Fifty-two patients with ECMO + IABP and 14 patients with ECMO + Impella were recruited. No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of ECMO duration (2.5 vs 4.6 days, p = 0.147), ICU LOS (7.7 vs 10.8 days, p = 0.367), and hospital LOS (14.8 vs 16.5 days, p = 0.556) between the two groups. No statistically significant difference was observed in the ECMO, ICU, and hospital mortalities between the two groups. Specific complications related to the ECMO and Impella combination were also noted. Conclusions: Impella was not shown to offer a statistically significant clinical benefit compared with IABP in conjunction with ECMO. Clinicians should be aware of the specific complications of using Impella.

scholarly journals Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as mechanical circulatory support in adult septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis with individual participant data meta-regression analysis

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Ruiyang Ling ◽  
Kollengode Ramanathan ◽  
Wynne Hsing Poon ◽  
Chuen Seng Tan ◽  
Nicolas Brechot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Septic Shock ◽  
Va Ecmo

Abstract Background While recommended by international societal guidelines in the paediatric population, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as mechanical circulatory support for refractory septic shock in adults is controversial. We aimed to characterise the outcomes of adults with septic shock requiring VA ECMO, and identify factors associated with survival. Methods We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception until 1st June 2021, and included all relevant publications reporting on > 5 adult patients requiring VA ECMO for septic shock. Study quality and certainty in evidence were assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, respectively. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, duration of ECMO support, complications while on ECMO, and sources of sepsis. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted. Data synthesis We included 14 observational studies with 468 patients in the meta-analysis. Pooled survival was 36.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.6%–50.1%). Survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 20% (62.0%, 95%-CI: 51.6%–72.0%) was significantly higher than those with LVEF > 35% (32.1%, 95%-CI: 8.69%–60.7%, p = 0.05). Survival reported in studies from Asia (19.5%, 95%-CI: 13.0%–26.8%) was notably lower than those from Europe (61.0%, 95%-CI: 48.4%–73.0%) and North America (45.5%, 95%-CI: 16.7%–75.8%). GRADE assessment indicated high certainty of evidence for pooled survival. Conclusions When treated with VA ECMO, the majority of patients with septic shock and severe sepsis-induced myocardial depression survive. However, VA ECMO has poor outcomes in adults with septic shock without severe left ventricular depression. VA ECMO may be a viable treatment option in carefully selected adult patients with refractory septic shock.

scholarly journals Quality of Life Following Urgent LVAD Implantation for ECMO Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: A Long-Term Follow-Up

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (8) ◽  
pp. 747
Author(s):  
Rafal Berger ◽  
Hasan Hamdoun ◽  
Rodrigo Sandoval Boburg ◽  
Medhat Radwan ◽  
Metesh Acharya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ecmo Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Va Ecmo ◽  
Ecmo Therapy

Background and Objectives: Over the past decade, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has developed into a mainstream treatment for refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) to maximal conservative management. Successful weaning of VA-ECMO may not be possible, and bridging with further mechanical circulatory support (MCS), such as urgent implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), may represent the only means to sustain the patient haemodynamically. In the recovery phase, many survivors are not suitably prepared physically or psychologically for the novel issues encountered during daily life with an LVAD. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of our institutional database between 2012 and 2019 was performed to identify patients treated with VA-ECMO for CS who underwent urgent LVAD implantation whilst on MCS. Post-cardiotomy cases were excluded. QoL was assessed prospectively during a routine follow-up visit using the EuroQol-5 dimensions-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) surveys. Results: Among 126 in-hospital survivors of VA-ECMO therapy due to cardiogenic shock without prior cardiac surgery, 31 (24.6%) urgent LVAD recipients were identified. In 11 (36.7%) cases, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was performed (median 10, range 1–60 min) before initiation of VA-ECMO, and in 5 (16.7%) cases, MCS was established under CPR. Mean age at LVAD implantation was 51.7 (+/−14) years and surgery was performed after a mean 12.1 (+/−8) days of VA-ECMO support. During follow-up of 46.9 (+/−25.5) months, there were 10 deaths after 20.4 (+/−12.1) months of LVAD support. Analysis of QoL questionnaires returned a mean EQ-5D-5L score of 66% (+/−21) of societal valuation for Germany and a mean PHQ-9 score of 5.7 (+/−5) corresponding to mild depression severity. When compared with 49 elective LVAD recipients without prior VA-ECMO therapy, there was no significant difference in QoL results. Conclusions: Patients requiring urgent LVAD implantation under VA-ECMO support due to CS are associated with comparable quality of life without a significant difference from elective LVAD recipients. Close follow-up is required to oversee patient rehabilitation after successful initial treatment.

Abstract 13425: Comparison Between Impella 5.0 and External Corporeal Left Ventricular Assist Device as a Bridge to Decision in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Kondo ◽  
Naoki Shibata ◽  
shingo kazama ◽  
Yuki Kimura ◽  
Hideo Oishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Cardiac Recovery ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Bridge To Decision ◽  
Va Ecmo

Background: In cardiogenic shock refractory to medical treatment, choosing and changing mechanical circulatory support to stabilize hemodynamics until cardiac recovery or next treatment is a strategic cornerstone for improving the outcome. We aimed to clarify the differences in treatment course and outcome between Impella 5.0 and 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 treated with Impella 5.0 or eLVAD as a bridge to decision (BTD) at our medical center from December 2011 to January 2020. Results: A total of 26 patients (median age 40 years, 16 males) were analyzed. Of seven patients managed with Impella 5.0, one patients used Impella CP and four patients used peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) before Impella 5.0 implantation. On the other hand, of 19 patients managed with eLVAD, 11 patients used VA-ECMO before eLVAD implantation. In patients managed with Impella 5.0, Impella 5.0 was removed successfully in two patients (29%) and four patients (71%) underwent the operation for durable LVAD. In patients managed with eLVAD, eLVAD was successfully removed in three patients (16%), nine patients (47%) required durable LVAD, and seven patients (37%) died during eLVAD management. The period between implantation of Impella 5.0 or eLVAD to durable LVAD surgery was significantly shorter with Impella 5.0 (58 [38 - 95] vs. 235 [126 - 318] days, p=0.001). During durable LVAD implantation, cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter and a significantly smaller amount of red blood cells transfusion was required with Impella 5.0 (149 [125 - 182] vs. 192 [170 - 250] minutes, p=0.042; 7.0 [5.0 - 9.5] vs. 15.0 [10.0- 2.0] units, p=0.019, respectively). There were 4 massive stroke events in eLVAD, but no massive stroke events in Impella 5.0. In Impella 5.0. Conclusions: Impella 5.0 facilitates smoother management as a BTD and reduces surgical invasiveness during durable LVAD implantation. Impella 5.0 would be a more effective option for success to cardiac recovery or next therapy than eLVAD.

scholarly journals The Effect of Atrial Septal Defect in the Treatment of ARDS with Left Ventricular Dysfunction Simulating Severe COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. E574-E578
Author(s):  
Liwei Diao ◽  
Yingjie Yang ◽  
Baoquan Zhang ◽  
Qizhong Shi ◽  
Hongzhe Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Septal Defect ◽  
Left Ventricular Dysfunction ◽  
Septal Defect ◽  
Ventricular Dysfunction ◽  
Oxygenation Index ◽  
Systemic Circulation ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Heart Beat ◽  
Large Animal ◽  
Va Ecmo

Objective: To explore the effect of atrial septal defect (ASD) and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in the treatment of ARDS combined with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) to find a new effective method for treating severe COVID-19 patients. Materials and methods: Five large animal ARDS models of sheep were established by intravenous injection of Lipopolysaccharide. ASD was made under general anesthesia and VA-ECMO was simulated by extracorporeal circulation machine. The oxygenation of peripheral blood, systemic circulation, and cardiac function were observed under conditions of closed and opened ASD, and the significance of ASD shunt in improving cardiopulmonary function was evaluated. Results: With ASD closed, the atrial shunts disappeared, the peripheral artery pressure of oxygen(PaO2): 141.2±21.4mmHg, the oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2): 353.0±53.5, the mean blood pressure (MAP): 49.3±13.5 mmHg, the heart was full; with ASD opened, the left-to-right shunt was observed, PaO2: 169.3±18.9mmHg, PaO2/FiO2: 423.3±47.3, MAP: 68.2±16.1 mmHg, the range of cardiac motion significantly increased, heart beat was powerful, and systemic circulation significantly improved. Statistical analysis showed that there were significant differences between opened and closed ASD (P < .01). Conclusion: ASD plus VA-ECMO is an effective method for the treatment of ARDS combined with LVD, which is the main cause of death in severe COVID-19 patients. However, further clinical validation is needed.

Abstract 11816: Combined Use of VA-ECMO and IMPELLA (ECPELLA) Reduces Myocardial Damage and Mortality in Lethal Cardiogenic Shock Patients Due to Acute Coronary Syndrome

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 144 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takashi Unoki ◽  
Motoko Kametani ◽  
Takaaki Toyofuku ◽  
Yutaka Konami ◽  
Hiroto Suzuyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Myocardial Damage ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Coronary Risk Factors ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Va Ecmo

Background: Short-term mortality of lethal cardiogenic shock (CS) patients due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains to be improved. The veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been applied as the effective lifesaving modality for CS patients. While VA-ECMO maintains end-organ perfusion, it increases the damaged left ventricular (LV) afterload. Combined treatment of VA-ECMO and a micro-axial Impella pump, ECPELLA, simultaneously provides the systemic circulatory support and LV unloading. However, it remains unknown whether LV unloading effect by ECPELLA can reduce the myocardial damage and the mortality. Purpose: This study was to assess whether ECPELLA reduces myocardial damage and improves the mortality of CS patients due to ACS. Methods: From January 2012 to May 2021, 66 consecutive patients with lethal CS (SCAI stage-E) due to ACS were enrolled. All patients received VA-ECMO support prior to or after the percutaneous coronary intervention. Among them, 34 patients received ECPELLA and 32 patients received VA-ECMO + IABP. We assessed serum CK-MB levels and the cumulative 30-day mortality. Results: There were no significant difference in age, rate of male sex, coronary risk factors, ST elevated ACS, left main trunk (LMT) lesion, and the time from onset to reperfusion between two treatment groups. The ECPELLA group had significantly lower peak CK-MB and lower 30-day all-cause mortality compared to the VA-ECMO + IABP group [Peak CPK level: median (IQR); 295 (92-507) vs.580 (219-1090): p=0.002, the 30-day mortality rate: 50% vs. 76%: p=0.02, respectively]. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis including age, the time form onset to reperfusion, LMT lesion, E-CPR, and ECPELLA revealed that the ECPELLA (HR: 0.30 95% confidence interval:0.13-0.64; p=0.002) was independently associated with the 30-day all-cause mortality. Conclusion: Results suggest that the ECPELLA reduces the myocardial damage shown by peak CK-MB and improves the 30-day mortality.

Abstract 13428: Cardiac Troponin T Level is Associated With Myocardial Recovery in Fulminant Myocarditis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Kondo ◽  
Naoki Shibata ◽  
shingo kazama ◽  
Yuki Kimura ◽  
Hideo Oishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Troponin ◽  
Troponin T ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Fulminant Myocarditis ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Cardiac Troponin T ◽  
Myocardial Recovery ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Va Ecmo

Background: Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is a fatal disease that causes rapid-onset severe heart failure requiring inotropes or mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Because insufficient myocardial recovery requires durable left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation, the course of myocardial recovery should be predicted. Hypothesis: Cardiac troponins, which elevates due to myocardial damage, may associate with myocardial recovery in FM. Purpose: We aimed to investigate the relationship between cardiac troponin T (TnT) levels and myocardial recovery course in patients with FM. Method: We performed a retrospective medical record review of 19 patients with FM requiring MCS from May 2012 to January 2020. The serial changes of one-week left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after MCS implantation according to TnT levels were evaluated. Results: Median age was 50 years and 10 patients were male. As for initial MCS, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) were used in 13 patients, IABP in 4 patients, VA-ECMO in one patient, and impella 2.5 in one patient. Median peak TnT level within one week after MCS implantation were 4.43 (2.47 - 34.6) ng/mL. The patients were divided into High-TnT group and Low-TnT group according to median peak TnT level. All patients in both groups were alive until 7 days after MCS implantation, and LVEF on day 7 was significantly lower in the High-TnT group (Fig). TnT level was highest on day 1 and gradually decreased in the High-TnT group (Fig). Six patients died during hospitalization in the High-TnT group, in contrast, only one patient died in the Low-TnT group (p=0.020). Peak TnT level in patients with LVEF ≥30% (n=8) on day 7 was significantly lower than in patients with LVEF <30% (2.40 vs 13.5 ng/mL, p=0.012), however, other laboratory parameters showed no significant differences. Conclusion: Higher TnT level showed impaired myocardial recovery in patients with FM.

scholarly journals Short-term use of “ECMELLA” in the context of fulminant eosinophilic myocarditis with cardiogenic shock

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mintje Bohné ◽  
Da-Un Chung ◽  
Eike Tigges ◽  
Hendrick van der Schalk ◽  
Daniela Waddell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Fulminant Myocarditis ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Histopathological Diagnosis ◽  
Severe Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Hemodynamic Deterioration ◽  
Eosinophilic Myocarditis ◽  
Va Ecmo

Abstract Background Eosinophilic myocarditis (EM) is a rare form of myocarditis. Clinical presentation is various, includes cardiogenic shock and can often be fatal. Diagnosis is based on myocardial eosinophilic infiltration in endomyocardial biopsy. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is often required in patients suffering from severe cardiogenic shock. Among the available MCS options the “ECMELLA” concept, a combination of left ventricular venting by Impella® device and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is possibly able to provide the necessary time frame for diagnostics and initiation of anti-inflammatory medication in patients with fulminant myocarditis. Case presentation We report a case of a 38‐year‐old woman who was presented to us in severe cardiogenic shock, quickly requiring hemodynamic support by an Impella CP® device. Further dramatic hemodynamic deterioration accompanied by multi-organ dysfunction required escalation of MCS via ECLS as veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). After histopathological diagnosis of EM, our patient was put on immunosuppressive therapy with prednisolone. Recovery of both right and left ventricular function allowed explanation of VA-ECMO on day 4 and further hemodynamic improvement allowed removal of the Impella® device on day 9. The patient was discharged after 7 weeks with fully restored cardiac function and in a good neurological state. Conclusions In severe cardiac shock due to fulminant EM the ECMELLA concept as bridge-to-recovery seems to be a valid option to provide the required time for diagnostics and specific therapy.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 759
Author(s):  
Guillaume Schurtz ◽  
Natacha Rousse ◽  
Ouriel Saura ◽  
Vincent Balmette ◽  
Flavien Vincent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Va Ecmo ◽  
Unadjusted Analysis

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document