Maximum level of mobility with axillary deployment of the Impella 5.0 is associated with improved survival

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 236-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele L Esposito ◽  
Janelle Jablonski ◽  
Allison Kras ◽  
Sara Krasney ◽  
Navin K Kapur
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Activity Measure ◽  
Post Acute Care

Mobility is an important prognostic indicator for patients with cardiogenic shock. No studies have quantified peak mobility for patients with cardiogenic shock who are supported with the Impella 5.0 acute mechanical circulatory support device. The purpose of our study was to evaluate mobility levels among patients with cardiogenic shock being treated with an axillary Impella 5.0 pump. We retrospectively analyzed data from 19 patients receiving an Impella 5.0 device for cardiogenic shock at our institution from 2013 to 2016. We used the Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility Scale to quantify maximum mobility level achieved during active Impella 5.0 support. Higher scores on a scale of 1–8 indicated more mobility. Activity Measure for Post Acute Care Scores were quantified for each patient to assess activity limitations, with a maximum score 24. The mean age of the total cohort was 60 ± 12 years, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 16% ± 6%. In-hospital mortality was 47% (n = 9). Of the 19 Impella 5.0 implants, 10 survived, 6 died from withdrawal of care, and 3 died from worsening heart failure/cardiogenic shock. Similar rates of mobilization during the time of Impella implant were seen between groups. Compared to non-survivors, survivors achieved a higher maximum Johns Hopkins Highest Level of Mobility level, but similar Activity Measure for Post Acute Care scores. In conclusion, maximum mobility after Impella 5.0 implantation may be associated with improved survival. The clinical utility of exercise as a therapeutic intervention for patients requiring prolonged acute mechanical circulatory support requires further study.

Outcome of the Impella Device for Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Lemaire ◽  
Mark B. Anderson ◽  
Thomas Prendergast ◽  
Neil Stockmaster ◽  
Andrew Goodman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Heart Function ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
End Points ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support

Objective The contribution of cardiogenic shock to in-hospital mortality has not decreased significantly despite prompt revascularization, advances in medical therapy, and mechanical circulatory support. For patients in cardiogenic shock, mechanical circulatory support has been provided by a variety of devices. We report the outcome of the Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock in a setting of a large-volume single institution. The primary end points include survival to 30 days and recovery of native heart function and survival to 90 days and 1 year. The secondary end points include device complications. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of 36 consecutive patients who underwent placement of the Impella device from February 6, 2006, to December 31, 2010. The charts were evaluated for data relative to the patients’ demographics, hemodynamics, operative details, 30-day outcome including the patients’ native heart function recovery, and 90-day and 1-year survival. Results Thirty-six consecutive patients were included in our study. The mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 13 years, and 69% were men. The indication for placement of the Impella device included postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock in 23 patients (64%), acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock in 10 patients (28%), acute decompensated ischemic cardiomyopathy in 2 patients (6%), and myocarditis with cardiogenic shock in 1 patient (3%). The mean ± SD duration of the Impella support was 4.5 ± 3.9 days (range, 1–18). The 30-day survival rate was 72% (26/36), and, of those, 96% (25/26) recovered their native heart function and one (4%) was bridged to long-term left ventricular assist device (HeartMate II; Thoratec, Inc, Pleasanton, CA USA). The 90-day and 1-year survival was 64% and 61%, respectively. Conclusions The Impella devices yielded a very favorable outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 and the Impella Left Direct pumps for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock at La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles-Henri David ◽  
Astrid Quessard ◽  
Ciro Mastroianni ◽  
Guillaume Hekimian ◽  
Julien Amour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Heart Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Survival Outcome ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock

Abstract OBJECTIVES Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is associated with high mortality rates of 50–80%. Although veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been used as mechanical circulatory support in patients with PCCS, it is associated with a high rate of complications and poor quality of life. The Impella 5.0 and Impella Left Direct (LD) (Impella 5.0/LD) are minimally invasive left ventricular assist devices that provide effective haemodynamic support resulting in left ventricular unloading and systemic perfusion. Our goal was to describe the outcome of patients with PCCS supported with the Impella 5.0/LD at La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients supported with the Impella 5.0/LD for PCCS between December 2010 and June 2015. Survival outcome and in-hospital complications were assessed. RESULTS A total of 29 patients (63 ± 14 years, 17% women) with PCCS were supported with the Impella 5.0/LD. At baseline, 69% experienced chronic heart failure, 66% had dilated cardiomyopathy and 57% had valvular disease. The mean EuroSCORE II was 22 ± 17 and the ejection fraction was 28 ± 11%. Most of the patients underwent isolated valve surgery (45%) or isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (38%). The mean duration of Impella support was 9 ± 7 days. Weaning from the Impella was successful in 72.4%, and 58.6% survived to discharge. Recovery of native heart function was observed in 100% of discharged patients. Survival to 30 days and to 1 year from Impella implant was 58.6% and 51.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The Impella 5.0 and the Impella LD represent an excellent treatment option for critically ill patients with PCCS and are associated with favourable survival outcome and native heart recovery.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes Associated with Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Utilization in Heart Failure Related Cardiogenic Shock

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Hernandez-Montfort ◽  
Shashank S. Sinha ◽  
Katherine L. Thayer ◽  
Evan H. Whitehead ◽  
Mohit Pahuja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Right Atrial ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Hospital Death ◽  
Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support

Background : Cardiogenic shock occurring in the setting of advanced heart failure (HF-CS) is increasingly common. However, recent studies have focused almost exclusively on acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock. We sought to define clinical, hemodynamic, metabolic, and treatment parameters associated with clinical outcomes among HF-CS patients, using data from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG) Registry. Methods : Patients with HF-CS were identified from the multi-center CSWG registry and divided into 3 outcome categories assessed at hospital discharge: mortality, heart replacement therapy (HRT: durable ventricular assist device [VAD] or orthotopic heart transplant [OHT]), or native heart survival (NHS). Clinical characteristics, hemodynamic, laboratory parameters, drug therapies, acute mechanical circulatory support device (AMCS) utilization, and Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) stages were compared across the 3 outcome cohorts. Results : Of the 712 HF-CS patients identified, 180 (25.3%) died during their index admission, 277 (38.9%) underwent HRT (durable VAD or OHT), and 255 (35.8%) experienced NHS without HRT. Patients who died had the highest right atrial pressure and heart rate and the lowest mean arterial pressure of the 3 outcome groups (p<0.01 for all). Biventricular and isolated left-ventricular congestion were common among patients who died or underwent HRT, respectively. Lactate, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, and aspartate aminotransferase were highest in HF-CS patients experiencing in-hospital death. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was the most commonly used AMCS device in the overall cohort and among patients receiving HRT. Patients receiving more than one AMCS device had the highest in-hospital mortality rate irrespective of the number of vasoactive drugs used. Mortality decreased with deteriorating SCAI stages (stage B: 0%, stage C: 10.7%, stage D: 29.4%, stage E: 54.5%, 1-way ANOVA = <0.001). Conclusions : Patients with HF-CS experiencing in-hospital mortality had a high prevalence of biventricular congestion and markers of end-organ hypoperfusion. Substantial heterogeneity exists with use of AMCS in HF-CS with IABP being the most common device used and high rates of in-hospital mortality after exposure to more than one AMCS device.

Use of the Impella 5.0 Device as a Bridge to Recovery in Adult Fulminant Viral Myocarditis

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 279-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J.P. Burns ◽  
Mackenzie A. Quantz
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Viral Myocarditis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Cardiac Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
St Elevation ◽  
Cardiac Intensive Care

We present a case of a 48-year-old female patient successfully bridged to recovery with the Impella 5.0 microaxial pump (Abiomed, Danvers, MA USA) after presenting with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute fulminant viral myocarditis. After 1 week of flu-like symptoms, the patient presented to her community emergency department with chest pain and hypotension. A diagnosis of inferior ST elevation myocardial infarction was made; subsequent angiography demonstrated normal coronary arteries and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 10%. A provisional diagnosis of viral myocarditis was made. As her condition deteriorated further, she underwent insertion of an Impella 5.0 after failure of supportive medical therapy. Myocardial recovery occurred, and the Impella was removed after 1 week. After a prolonged cardiac intensive care unit stay requiring temporary hemodialysis, the patient recovered sufficiently to tolerate device explant, transfer to the recovery ward, and ultimate discharge home. This case report highlights the benefit of mechanical circulatory support in a patient with cardiogenic shock from viral myocarditis as well as some of the complications that can occur in this critically ill subset of patients.

scholarly journals Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e001214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ole Kristian Lerche Helgestad ◽  
Jakob Josiassen ◽  
Christian Hassager ◽  
Lisette Okkels Jensen ◽  
Lene Holmvang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Early Application ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Matched Control Group

ObjectivesTo describe the contemporary trends in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). To evaluate survival benefit with early application of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella CP.MethodsA cohort study of all consecutive patients with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) <24 hours of symptom onset (early PCI) in southeastern Denmark from 2010 to 2017. A matched case–control study comparing 30-day mortality between patients receiving early-IABP or early-Impella CP and their respective control group. Controls were matched on age, left ventricular ejection fraction, arterial lactate, estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac arrest before PCI. Early-IABP/Impella CP was defined as applied before PCI if shock developed pre-PCI, or immediately after PCI if shock developed during PCI.Results903 patients with AMICS undergoing early PCI were identified. Use of MCS decreased from 50% in 2010 to 25% in 2017, p for trend of <0.001. The IABP was abandoned in 2012 and replaced mostly by Impella CP. Patients receiving MCS in 2013–2017 had more compromised haemodynamics compared with patients receiving MCS in 2010–2012. 40 patients received early IABP, and 40 patients received early Impella CP. Only the group receiving early Impella CP was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with their matched control group (30-day mortality 40% vs 77.5%, plog-rank of<0.001).ConclusionUse of MCS decreased by 50% from 2010 to 2017. Patients receiving MCS had more compromised haemodynamics in recent years. Early application of Impella CP was associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with a matched control group.

scholarly journals COVID-19 era: time for temporary mechanical circulatory support?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Alonso Fernandez De Gatta ◽  
A Diego Nieto ◽  
S Merchan Gomez ◽  
M Gonzalez Cebrian ◽  
I Toranzo Nieto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Va Ecmo

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Instituto de Salud Carlos III in Spain (Co-funded by European Social Fund "Investing in your future"). INTRODUCTION The Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted clinical practice with important changes in the most affected areas, resulting in increased mortality from heart disease (myocardial infarction). The feasibility of continuing a temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) program is unknown. PURPOSE Our objective was to analyze the survival of patients requiring short-term MCS with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or Impella CP® during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Retrospective study including all VA-ECMO and Impella CP® implants in a referral hospital since March 2020 compared to previous implants results. RESULTS Out of 167 short-term MCS implanted from 2013, 25 (15%) were conducted during the time of COVID-19 pandemic: 19 VA-ECMO and 6 Impella CP® (Table). Compared to preCOVID-19 implants, patients requiring MCS in the COVID era presented more frequently right ventricular dysfunction (p = 0.005) and showed a trend towards older age (p = 0.069) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.063), without other significant differences regarding the baseline situation and implant technique (Table). Encephalopathy was more frequent in the COVID-19 era, with no differences in other complications (Table). Survival at discharge was 43.7% in the pre-COVID era vs 36% during COVID-19 pandemic, without finding statistically significant differences (p = 0.313). CONCLUSION Survival after temporary MCS did not get worse significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The possibility of short-term MCS should be maintained for cardiogenic shock and other cases of hemodynamic instability. Comparison MCS before and during COVIDTime of implantP valueTime of implantP valuePre-COVID-192013-Feb 2020 (n = 142)COVID-19 timeMarch 2020-Nov 2020 (n = 25)Pre-COVID-192013-Feb 2020 (n = 142)COVID-19 timeMarch 2020-Nov 2020 (n = 25)Age (years) (mean+ SD)Male (n, %)62 ± 10 108 (76%)66 ± 10 15 (60%)0.069 0.079Support type VA-ECMO (n = 137) Impella CP® (n = 30) Percutaneous implant 118 (83.1%)24 (16.9%) 100 (70.4% 19 (76%) 6 (24%) 20 (80%)0.566 0.536Indication (n,%) Cardiogenic shock Refractory cardiac arrest Electrical storm0.63763 (44.4%)16 (11.3%)9 (6.3%)12 (48%) 4 (16%)2 (8%)Drugs at the implant Noradrenaline Dobutamine Adrenaline 115 (81%)114 (80.3%)51 (35.9%) 21 (84%) 21 (84%) 5 (20%) 0.370 0.312 0.108High-risk PCI Postcardiotomy shock Others17 (12%)36 (25.4%)1 (0.7%)3 (12%)4 (16%) 0 (0%)Time MCS (days)4.8 ± 53.9 ± 40.284 7.23 ± 0.16.8 ± 5 0.2920.495Complications (n,%) Vascular (bleeding, ischemia) Bleeding (minor or major) Critical care infections 35 (24.6%)59 (41.5%)67 (47.2%) 7 (28%) 9 (36%) 9 (36%) 0.096 0.117 0.096pH (mean + SD)lactate (mmol/L) (mean + SD)7.13 ± 16.03 ± 5LVEF (%) (mean + SD)Right ventricle dysfunction (n,%)28.7 ± 16 68 (47.9%)21.9 ± 15 20 (80%)0.063 0.005Ischemic/hemorragic stroke Renal replacement therapy Tracheostomy Encephalopathy9 (6.3%) 36 (25.4%) 23 (16.2%)14 (9.8%)2 (8%) 4 (16%) 5 (20%) 6 (24%)0.220 0.136 0.547 0.023Preimplant cardiac arrest (n,%)Cardiac arrest duration (min) (n,%)68 (47.9%) 28.7 ± 2312 (48%) 29.8 ± 230.364 0.880Survival at discharge (n,%)62 (43.7%)9 (36%)0.313

scholarly journals Mechanical circulatory support with impella in patients with non-acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Haurand ◽  
S Bueter ◽  
C Jung ◽  
M Kelm ◽  
R Westenfeld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Hemodynamic Parameters ◽  
Clinical Scores ◽  
Lactate Levels

Abstract Background Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices such as the Impella pump, are used to hemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI) until cardiac function has recovered after revascularization. Whether Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is effective in stabilizing patients with CS not caused by AMI has so far not been thoroughly investigated. Purpose The aim of this study is to analyze whether MCS with Impella is effective to stabilize patients with non-AMI related CS compared to patients with AMI related CS. Method We retrospectively analyzed 106 patients with CS and Impella support in the years from 2011 to 2018. Efficacy to stabilize the patient was assessed by laboratory values such as lactate, hemodynamic parameters and clinical scores. The difference in mortality was calculated with the Log-Rank-Test, comparing Kaplan-Meier curves. Results 36 patients suffered from non-AMI CS and in 70 patients CS was caused by AMI. Regarding the clinical scores and hemodynamic parameters, both groups were severely ill, with no significant difference in APACHE II score, with a mean score of 17.9 in the non-AMI group compared to 20.5 in the AMI-group (p=0.103), the SOFA score (mean score of 6.3 in non-AMI group vs 6.8 in AMI group, p=0.467) and cardiac index (mean CI of 1.9 l/min/m2 in non-AMI group vs 2.2 l/min/m2 in AMI group, p=0.176). There was a comparable mean decrease in lactate levels in both groups 48 hours after initiation of MCS, from initially 4.1 mmol/l to 1.7 mmol/l (p&lt;0.001) in the non-AMI group and from initially 3.6 mmol/l to 2.2 mmol/l (p=0.025) in the AMI group. The non-ACS group exhibited a trend of lower mortality compared to the AMI group, with 47% in the non-AMI group and 57% in the AMI group (p=0.067). In multivariate analysis, age, lactate levels, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, low platelets and higher doses of inotropes and vasopressors were independent predictors for mortality. An upgrade to LVAD was performed for 22% of the non-AMI group and for 6% of the AMI group (p=0.020). Conclusion Impella support is effective to hemodynamically stabilize patients with non-AMI related CS. Therefore, MCS can be used as bridge to recovery or enables further treatment options as upgrade to longterm mechanical support devices. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document