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 Outcome of CentriMag™ extracorporeal mechanical circulatory support use in critical cardiogenic shock (INTERMACS 1) patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S2) ◽  
pp. 265-274
Author(s):  
Vipin Mehta ◽  
Rajamiyer V. Venkateswaran
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Heart Transplantation ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Bridge To Decision

Abstract Purpose Prognosis of patients presenting with INTERMACS 1 critical cardiogenic shock is generally poor. The aim of our study was to investigate the results of CentriMag™ extracorporeal short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to decision in patients presenting with critical cardiogenic shock in our unit. Methods We retrospectively analysed 63 consecutive patients from January 2005 to June 2017, who were treated with a CentriMag™ device at our institution as a bridge to decision. Patients requiring extracorporeal support for post-cardiotomy shock and for primary graft dysfunction after heart transplantation were excluded. Results Patients’ median age was 44 years (IQR 31–52, range 15.4–62.0) and 42 (67%) were male. Primary diagnosis at presentation was ischaemic cardiomyopathy (n = 24; 38.1%), viral myocarditis (n = 19; 30.2%), idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 8; 12.7%), and others (n = 12; 19%). The median duration of support was 25 (IQR 9.5–56) days. A total of 7 (11%) patients were supported with peripheral veno-arterial (VA) extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), 6 (9%) with central VA ECMO, 8 (13%) with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), 17 (27%) with biventricular assist device (BiVAD), and 25 (40%) with ECMO and then converted to BiVAD. Overall, 22 (34.9%) patients died while on CentriMag™ mechanical circulatory support. Complications included bleeding requiring reoperation/intervention in 24 (38%), renal failure requiring dialysis in 29 (46%), bacterial infections in 23 (37%), fungal infections in 15 (24%), critical limb ischaemia in 6 (10%), and stroke in 8 (13%). The overall survival to successful explant from CentriMag™ was 65.1% (n = 41) and survival to hospital discharge was 58.7% (n = 37). Of these, 10 (16%) had cardiac recovery and were successfully explanted, 20 (32%) were bridged to heart transplantation, 11 (17%) were bridged to long-term left ventricular assist device, 3 (4.7%) were later on transplanted, and 1 (1.6%) recovered to decommissioning. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 55%, 46%, and 23% respectively. Conclusion Our results demonstrate an excellent outcome with the use of the CentriMag™ device in this seriously ill population. Despite requiring multiple procedures, over 58% of patients were discharged from hospital with 5-year survival of 46%.

Comparison of Impella 5.0 and extracorporeal left ventricular assist device in patients with cardiogenic shock

2021 ◽  
pp. 039139882110405
Author(s):  
Toru Kondo ◽  
Ryota Morimoto ◽  
Masato Mutsuga ◽  
Kazuro Fujimoto ◽  
Takahiro Okumura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist Device ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Bridge To Decision

Introduction: Choice of mechanical circulatory support to stabilize hemodynamics until cardiac recovery or next treatment is a strategic cornerstone for improving outcomes in patients with severe cardiogenic shock. We aimed to clarify the difference in treatment course and outcomes with the use of Impella 5.0 and an 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 implanted with Impella 5.0 or eLVAD as a bridge to decision at our medical center. Results: A total of 26 patients (median age 40 years, 16 males) were analyzed. Of seven patients managed with Impella 5.0, the Impella 5.0 was removed successfully in two patients and five patients underwent surgery for durable LVAD implantation. Of 19 patients managed with eLVAD, the eLVAD was successfully removed in 3 patients, 9 patients required durable LVAD, and 7 patients died during eLVAD management. The period between Impella 5.0 or eLVAD implantation to durable LVAD surgery was significantly shorter with Impella 5.0 (58 vs 235 days, p = 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter and a significantly smaller amount of red blood cell transfusion was required with Impella 5.0 (149 vs 192 min, p = 0.042; 7.0 vs 15.0 units, p = 0.019). There were four massive stroke events with eLVAD, but no massive stroke event with Impella 5.0. Conclusion: Impella 5.0 facilitates smoother management as a bridge to decision and reduces surgical invasiveness during durable LVAD implantation.

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

Temporary Veno-Venous ECMO for Acute Respiratory Illness in Pediatric Berlin Heart Patient

2021 ◽  
pp. 215013512110628
Author(s):  
Madeleine L. Townsend ◽  
Sara Sadat-Hossieny ◽  
Samir Q. Latifi ◽  
Gerard Boyle ◽  
Alistair Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Severe Heart Failure ◽  
Respiratory Illness ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Unique Case ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Refractory Hypoxemia

We report the unique case of a 2-year-old male with severe heart failure requiring mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device, who developed adenovirus pneumonitis infection requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. He progressed to acute respiratory failure and refractory hypoxemia despite intubation with maximum respiratory support. The patient was placed on ECMO with improvement in lung function over four days with subsequent successful decannulation. During the ECMO run, anticoagulation required escalation given the increased circuit surface area. Patient has since recovered and undergone heart transplantation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document