scholarly journals Mechanical circulatory support in refractory cardiogenic shock due to influenza virus-related myocarditis

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 2000925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Thorben Sieweke ◽  
Muharrem Akin ◽  
Sebastian Stetskamp ◽  
Christian Riehle ◽  
Danny Jonigk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Virus ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Influenza Virus Infection ◽  
Axial Flow ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Influenza B ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Va Ecmo ◽  
The Impact

BackgroundThere is scarce evidence for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with influenza-related myocarditis complicated by refractory cardiogenic shock (rCS). We sought to investigate the impact of MCS using combined veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and micro-axial flow pumps (the ECMELLA concept) in influenza-related myocarditis complicated by rCS.MethodsThis is a prospective, observational analysis from the single centre HAnnover Cardiac Unloading REgistry (HACURE) from two recent epidemic influenza seasons. We analysed patients with verified influenza-associated myocarditis complicated by rCS who were admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU) on MCS. Subsequently, we performed a propensity score (PS) matched analysis to patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by rCS and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (DCM) related rCS.ResultsWe describe a series of seven patients with rCS-complicated influenza-related myocarditis (mean age 56±10 years, 58% male, influenza A (n=2)/influenza B (n=5)). No patient had been vaccinated prior to the influenza season. MCS was provided using combined VA-ECMO and Impella micro-axial flow pump. In two patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, VA-ECMO had been implanted for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. All patients died within 18 days of hospital admission. By PS-based comparison to patients with AMI- or DCM-related rCS and combined MCS, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in influenza-related rCS.ConclusionDespite initial stabilisation with combined MCS in patients with rCS-complicated influenza-related myocarditis, the detrimental course of shock could not be stopped and all patients died. Influenza virus infection potentially critically affects other organs besides the heart, leading to irreversible end-organ damage that MCS cannot compensate for and, therefore, results in a devastating outcome.

scholarly journals Cardiogenic shock complicating peripartum cardiomyopathy: Importance of early left ventricular unloading and bromocriptine therapy

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Thorben Sieweke ◽  
Tobias Jonathan Pfeffer ◽  
Dominik Berliner ◽  
Tobias König ◽  
Maximiliane Hallbaum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Axial Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Peripartum Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Left Ventricular Recovery

Introduction: Acute peripartum cardiomyopathy complicated by cardiogenic shock is a rare but life-threatening disease. A prolactin fragment is considered causal for the pathogenesis of peripartum cardiomyopathy. This analysis sought to investigate the role of early percutaneous mechanical circulatory support with micro-axial flow-pumps and/or veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in combination with the prolactin inhibitor bromocriptine in refractory cardiogenic shock complicating peripartum cardiomyopathy. Methods and results: In this single-centre analysis, five peripartum cardiomyopathy patients with refractory cardiogenic shock received mechanical circulatory support with either Impella CP microaxial pump only ( n=2) or in combination with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( n=3) in the setting of biventricular failure. All patients were mechanically ventilated. In all cases mechanical circulatory support was combined with bromocriptine therapy and early administration of levosimendan. All patients survived the acute phase of refractory cardiogenic shock. Mechanical circulatory support using a micro-axial pump allowed to significantly reduce catecholamine dosage. Remarkably, early left ventricular support with micro-axial flow-pumps resulted in myocardial recovery whereas delayed Impella (mechanical circulatory support) implantation was associated with poor left ventricular recovery. Conclusion: Mechanical circulatory support in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock complicating peripartum cardiomyopathy was associated with a 30-day survival of 100% and a favourable outcome. Notably, early left ventricular unloading combined with bromocriptine therapy was associated with left ventricular recovery. Therefore, an immediate transfer to a tertiary hospital experienced in mechanical circulatory support in combination with bromocriptine treatment seems indispensable for successful treatment of peripartum cardiomyopathy complicated by cardiogenic shock.

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.

scholarly journals Biventricular Unloading with Impella and Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Severe Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: Implications from the Combined Use of the Devices and Prognostic Risk Factors of Survival

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 747
Author(s):  
Georgios Chatzis ◽  
Styliani Syntila ◽  
Birgit Markus ◽  
Holger Ahrens ◽  
Nikolaos Patsalis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Lactate Levels ◽  
Va Ecmo

Since mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have become integral component in the therapy of refractory cardiogenic shock (RCS), we identified 67 patients in biventricular support with Impella and venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for RCS between February 2013 and December 2019 and evaluated the risk factors of mortality in this setting. Mean age was 61.07 ± 10.7 and 54 (80.6%) patients were male. Main cause of RCS was acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (74.6%), while 44 (65.7%) were resuscitated prior to admission. The mean Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) score on admission was 73.54 ± 16.03 and 12.25 ± 2.71, respectively, corresponding to an expected mortality of higher than 80%. Vasopressor doses and lactate levels were significantly decreased within 72 h on biventricular support (p < 0.05 for both). Overall, 17 (25.4%) patients were discharged to cardiac rehabilitation and 5 patients (7.5%) were bridged successfully to ventricular assist device implantation, leading to a total of 32.8% survival on hospital discharge. The 6-month survival was 31.3%. Lactate > 6 mmol/L, vasoactive score > 100 and pH < 7.26 on initiation of biventricular support, as well as Charlson comorbity index > 3 and prior resuscitation were independent predictors of survival. In conclusion, biventricular support with Impella and VA-ECMO in patients with RCS is feasible and efficient leading to a better survival than predicted through traditional risk scores, mainly via significant hemodynamic improvement and reduction in lactate levels.

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.

Outcome of the Impella Device for Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

2015 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. S84
Author(s):  
P. Farahmand ◽  
A. Quessard ◽  
G. Lebreton ◽  
C. d’Alessandro ◽  
C. Mastroianni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

scholarly journals Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Strategies under Hemodynamic Support for Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center Experience with Two Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Talha Ahmed ◽  
Diljon Chahal ◽  
Ronson J. Madathil ◽  
David Kaczorowski ◽  
Anuj Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Hemodynamic Support ◽  
Single Center Experience ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Va Ecmo

We describe two cases of profound cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (CSAMI) requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) allowing complex, high-risk, and staged percutaneous interventions with successful decannulation but with unfortunate outcomes.

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock: Lifeline of Modern Day CICU

2019 ◽  
pp. 088506661989454
Author(s):  
Aniket S. Rali ◽  
Jonathan Chandler ◽  
Andrew Sauer ◽  
Michael A. Solomon ◽  
Zubair Shah
Keyword(s):  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Support ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Va Ecmo

Cardiogenic shock (CS) portends an extremely high mortality of nearly 50% during index hospitalization. Prompt diagnoses of CS, its underlying etiology, and efficient implementation of treatment modalities, including mechanical circulatory support (MCS), are critical especially in light of such high predicted mortality. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides the most comprehensive cardiopulmonary support in critically ill patients and hence has seen a steady increase in its utilization over the past decade. Hence, a good understanding of VA-ECMO, its role in treatment of CS, especially when compared with other temporary MCS devices, and its complications are vital for any critical care cardiologist. Our review of VA-ECMO aims to provide the same.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document