Abstract 366: Risk of Adverse Events With Left Ventricular Assist Devicein Cardiogenic Shock Patients

Circulation ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 140 (Suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clauden Louis
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Perioperative Bleeding ◽  
Surgical Bleeding ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
The University

Study: The aim of this single-center, a retrospective study was to evaluate early and long-term adverse events in advanced heart failure patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation. We hypothesize that outcomes in patients implanted with LVAD with INTERMACS 1 have increased the risk of perioperative bleeding and infection. Methods: We evaluated outcomes in 191 patients with a HeartMate II LVAD implanted between May 2008 and June 2014 at the University of Rochester Medical Center, enrolled in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Registry. Patients were divided into two groups: A) INTERMACS level 1 (cardiogenic shock) or B) INTERMACS level>1 (noncardiogenic shock). Preoperative characteristics, as well as post-surgical bleeding, infection and all-cause mortality, were assessed. The original LVAD database has received exempt status from the RSRB (RSRB00043111). Results: From 191 patients, there were 59 patients with INTERMACS level 1, and 132 with INTERMACS level greater than 1. Patients with INTERMACS level 1 at LVAD implantation were younger. Following LVAD implantation, INTERMACS level 1 patients had a trend towards bleeding and infection.

Outcome of Temporary Circulatory Support As a Bridge-to-Left Ventricular Assist Device Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Auriane Bidaut ◽  
Erwan Flécher ◽  
Nicolas Nesseler ◽  
Karl Bounader ◽  
André Vincentelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

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 Prediction of survival of patients in cardiogenic shock treated by surgically implanted Impella 5+ short-term left ventricular assist device

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-482
Author(s):  
Gaik Nersesian ◽  
Carsten Tschöpe ◽  
Frank Spillmann ◽  
Tom Gromann ◽  
Luise Roehrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Abstract OBJECTIVES Short-term mechanical circulatory support is a life-saving treatment for acute cardiogenic shock (CS). This multicentre study investigates the preoperative predictors of 30-day mortality in CS patients treated with Impella 5.0 and 5.5 short-term left ventricular assist devices. METHODS Data of patients in CS (n = 70) treated with the Impella 5 (n = 63) and 5.5 (n = 7) in 2 centres in Berlin between October 2016 and October 2019 were collected retrospectively. RESULTS CS was caused by acute myocardial infarction (n = 16), decompensated chronic heart failure (n = 41), postcardiotomy syndrome (n = 5) and acute myocarditis (n = 8). Before implantation 12 (17%) patients underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 32 (46%) patients were ventilated. INTERMACS level 1, 2 and 3 was established in 35 (50%), 29 (41%) and 6 (9%) of patients, respectively. The mean preoperative lactate level was 4.05 mmol/l. The median support time was 7 days (IR= 4–15). In 18 cases, the pump was removed for myocardial recovery, in 22 cases, durable left ventricular assist devices were implanted, and 30 patients died on support. The overall 30-day survival was 51%. Statistical analysis showed that an increase in lactate per mmol/l [odds ratio (OR) 1.217; P = 0.015] and cardiopulmonary resuscitation before implantation (OR 16.74; P = 0.009) are predictors of 30-day survival. Based on these data, an algorithm for optimal short-term mechanical circulatory support selection is proposed. CONCLUSIONS Impella treatment is feasible in severe CS. Severe organ dysfunction, as well as the level and duration of shock predict early mortality. An algorithm based on these parameters may help identify patients who would benefit from Impella 5+ support.

Insertion of the Impella 5.0 Left Ventricular Assist Device via Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy a Novel Practical Approach

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Choi ◽  
Mark B. Anderson ◽  
George P. Batsides
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ascending Aorta ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
First Case ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

The Impella 5.0 microaxial pump is a miniaturized left ventricular assist device commonly used for circulatory support in acute cardiogenic shock. The catheter-based pump is designed to be inserted either into a peripheral artery or directly into the ascending aorta. We report the first case in which the Impella 5.0 device was placed directly into the ascending aorta via a small right anterior thoracotomy in a patient following acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

scholarly journals Intra‐Aortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Brown ◽  
Farooq H. Sheikh ◽  
Sara Ahmed ◽  
Samer S. Najjar ◽  
Ezequiel J. Molina
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Abstract Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly being used as destination therapy in patients with Stage D heart failure. It has been reported that a majority of patients who receive a durable LVAD (dLVAD) present in cardiogenic shock due to decompensated heart failure (ADHF‐CS). As it stands, there is no consensus on the optimal management strategy for patients presenting with ADHF. Bridging with intra‐aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) continues to be a therapeutic option in patients with hemodynamic instability due to cardiogenic shock. The majority of data regarding the use of IABP in cardiogenic shock come from studies in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and demonstrates that there is no benefit of routine IABP use in this patient population. However, the role of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in ADHF‐CS has yet to be determined. The hemodynamic changes seen in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock are known to be different and more acutely impaired than those presenting with ADHF‐CS as evidenced by differences in pressure/volume loops. Thus, data should not be extrapolated across these 2 very different disease processes. The aim of this review is to describe results from contemporary studies examining the use of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in patients with ADHF‐CS. Retrospective evidence from large registries suggests that the use of IABP as a bridge to dLVAD is feasible and safe when compared with other platforms of temporary mechanical circulatory support. However, there is currently a paucity of high‐quality evidence examining this increasingly important clinical question.

Single arterial access ECMELLA: A new concept and step-by-step procedure

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Extracorporeal Life Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Arterial Access ◽  
Severe Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Step Procedure

Therapy for cardiogenic shock using temporary mechanical circulatory support has improved significantly in the last decades, providing patients with new technologies for both acute phase stabilization and bridging to long-term therapies. A combination of a venoarterial extracorporeal life support system and the Impella left ventricular assist device (known as the ECMELLA approach) represents an effective therapy for severe cardiogenic shock that achieves high-flow circulatory support with simultaneous left-ventricular unloading. We present the new ECMELLA 2.0 concept, whereby a single arterial access technique is used to treat severe cardiogenic shock. The goal of this technique is to reduce access-related complications and make a bedside staged weaning from mechanical support possible.

scholarly journals First-Line Support by Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Non-Ischaemic Cardiogenic Shock in the Era of Modern Ventricular Assist Devices

Cardiology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corstiaan A. den Uil ◽  
Giorgia Galli ◽  
Lucia S. Jewbali ◽  
Kadir Caliskan ◽  
Olivier C. Manintveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Iabp Support ◽  
End Stage

Objectives: Little is known about circulatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS) from other causes than the acute coronary syndrome or after cardiotomy. We evaluated the effects of first-line intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support in this subpopulation of CS patients. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 27 patients with CS from end-stage cardiomyopathy supported firstly by IABP in the years 2011-2016. Results: At 24 h, lactate decreased from 3.2 (2.1-6.8) to 1.8 (1.2-2.2) mmol/L (p < 0.001). Eighteen patients (67%) defined as IABP responders were successfully bridged to either recovery (n = 7), left ventricular assist device (n = 5), or heart transplantation (n = 6). IABP failed in 9 patients (non-responders, 33%) who either died (n = 7) or needed support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 2). At 24 h of IABP support, urinary output was higher (2,660 [1,835-4,440] vs. 1,200 [649-2,385] mL; p = 0.02) and fluid balance more negative (-1,564 [-2,673 to -1,086] vs. -500 [-930 to +240] mL; p < 0.001) in responders than non-responders. Overall survival at 1 year was 63%. Conclusion: In most patients, first-line support by IABP in end-stage cardiomyopathy is associated with improvement in organ perfusion and clinical stabilisation for at least 24 h allowing time for decision making on next therapies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document