The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

Federico Pappalardo²  Michele De Bonis¹  Alberto Zangrillo²  Antonio Colombo³  Matteo Montorfano³  Dario Winterton²  Rachele Contri³  Marina Pieri² 

[1] Department of Cardiac Surgery, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, Milan, 20132, Italy;Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, Milan, 20132, Italy;Department of Interventional Cardiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, Milan, 20132, Italy

关键词: ECMO;    IMPELLA;    Cardiogenic shock;    Mechanical circulatory support;   

Others  :  1228358
DOI  :  10.1186/s12872-015-0119-9

 received in 2014-10-06, accepted in 2015-09-30,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The treatment of cardiogenic shock with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is attractive: however, at present it is not clear which is the best strategy, as no survival benefit has been demonstrated for any device as single therapy. Aim of this study is to describe the role of percutaneous Impella in a comprehensive MCS program.

Methods

Observational study on 22 patients supported with the Impella device in our hospital from May 2013 to June 2014.

Results

Four patients (18 %) were treated with Impella alone, 8 patients (36 %) were treated with Impella and IABP, 6 patients (27 %) with Impella and VA ECMO, and 4 patients (18 %) with Impella, IABP and VA ECMO.

The cause of cardiogenic shock was myocardial infarction (CSMI) in 9 patients (41 %), postcardiotomic cardiogenic shock in 5 (23 %), and a miscellaneous of other causes in the remaining 8 (36 %). Eight Impella devices (36 %) were placed under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance, while 14 (64 %) under fluoroscopy. The device was removed with manual compression at bedside and no vascular complications were observed.

Duration of Impella support was 107 (54–141) hours and duration of ventilation was 48 (14–92) hours. Hemolysis occurred in 6 patients (27 %), while major bleeding in 4 patients (18 %). Survival was 73 %: 13 patients (58 %) showed recovery of cardiac function; 1 patient (5 %) was bridged to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, 1 patient (5 %) to heart transplantation (HTx) and 1 patient (5 %) received a BiVAD and was eventually bridged to HTx.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that a multi-device approach, encompassing active LV support with Impella, is safe and can significantly improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Pieri et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lemaire A, Anderson MB, Lee LY, Scholz P, Prendergast T, Goodman A, et al.: The Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2014, 97(1):133-8.
• [2]Lemaire A, Anderson MB, Prendergast T, Stockmaster N, Goodman A, Lozane AM, et al.: Outcome of the Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support. Innovations (Phila) 2013, 8(1):12-6.
• [3]Miller MA, Dukkipati SR, Chinitz JS, Koruth JS, Mittnacht AJ, Napolitano C, et al.: Percutaneous hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 during scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation (PERMIT 1). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2013, 6(1):151-9.
• [4]O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, Henriques JP, Dixon S, Massaro J, et al.: A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation 2012, 126(14):1717-27.
• [5]Lauten A, Engström AE, Jung C, Empen K, Erne P, Cook S, et al.: Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail 2013, 6(1):23-30.
• [6]Aiyagari RM, Rocchini AP, Remenapp RT, Graziano JN: Decompression of the left atrium during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation using a transseptal cannula incorporated into the circuit. Crit Care Med 2006, 34:2603-6.
• [7]Loforte A, Montalto A, Ranocchi F, della Monica PL, Casali G, Lappa A, et al.: Peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system as salvage treatment of patients with refractory cardiogenic shock: preliminary outcome evaluation. Artif Organs 2012, 36:E53-61.
• [8]Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman JS: Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2014, 35(3):156-67.
• [9]Wernovsky G, Wypij D, Jonas RA, Mayer JE Jr, Hanley FL, Hickey PR, et al.: Postoperative course and hemodynamic profile after the arterial switch operation in neonates and infants. A comparison of low-flow cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. Circulation 1995, 92(8):2226-35.
• [10]Haukoos JS, Colwell C: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denver, Colorado: epidemiology and outcomes. Acad Emerg Med 2010, 17(4):391-4.
• [11]Cheng A, Swarts MF, Massey HT: Impella to unload the left ventricle during peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Asajo J 2013, 59:533-6.
• [12]Jouan J, Grinda JM, Bricourt MO, Cholley B, Fabiani JN, Pompidou G: Successful left ventricular decompression following peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation by percutaneous placement of a micro-axial flow pump. J Heart Lung Transplant 2010, 29(1):135-6.
• [13]Boulate D, Luyt CE, Pozzi M, Niculescu M, Combers A, Leprince P, et al.: Acute lung injury after mechanical circulation support implantation in a patient on extracorporeal life support: a unrecognized problem. Europ J Cardio-Thor Surg 2013, 544:550.