Single-centre experience with the Impella CP,5.0 and RP in 109 consecutive patients with profound cardiogenic shock

Abstract

Rationale:

Short-term mechanical circulatory support is increasingly used in the management of cardiogenic shock, but data from controlled studies are sparse. Thus, real-life data on complication rates and predictors of adverse outcome are important.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to analyse the experience with Impella devices in the management of profound cardiogenic shock.

Methods and results:

A retrospective study of 109 consecutive patients with severe shock after myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, or cardiac surgery. Possible device-related complications were registered and predictors of death while on Impella support and within 180 days were identified. In 79 patients (72%) cardiogenic shock was caused by myocardial infarction, acute heart failure in 16 (15%) and post-cardiotomy shock in 14 patients (13%). Thirty-five patients (32%) were comatose after cardiac arrest and in seven, the Impella was placed during chest compression. Mean age was 62±12 years, mean arterial pressure was 57±13 mmHg, pH 7.19±0.17 and lactate 7.5±5.7 mmol/l (range 1.8–30.0 mmol/l) at placement. During Impella therapy, 26 patients (28%) died among patients with myocardial infarction or acute heart failure. Of data available prior to placement lactate (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.04–1.25, P=0.004) was the only predictor of death on support. During support, five patients (5%) developed leg ischaemia requiring intervention. Bleeding from the Impella insertion site was seen in 14 patients (13%).

Conclusion:

Impella treatment is feasible in profound cardiogenic shock at an acceptable rate of complications. Despite an aggressive approach to restore cardiac output, mortality was high. Besides the severity of lactic acidosis there were no strong predictors of early death.

Keywords

Cardiogenic shock left ventricular assist device

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kolte

Khera

Aronow

et al . Temporal trends in incidence and outcomes of peripartum cardiomyopathy in the United States: a nationwide population-based study. J Am Heart Assoc 2014; 3: e001056.

Shah

de Lemos

Wang

et al . Post-hospital outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: findings from the NCDR. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 739–747.

Wayangankar

Bangalore

McCoy

et al . Temporal trends and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: a report from the CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9: 341–351.

Levine

Bates

Blankenship

et al . 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 1235–1250.

Thiele

Zeymer

Neumann

et al . Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1287–1296.

Stretch

Sauer

Yuh

et al . National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64 :1407–1415.

Ouweneel

Engstrom

Sjauw

et al . Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock. Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial. Int J Cardiol 2016; 202: 894–896.

Ouweneel

Eriksen

Seyfarth

et al . Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump for treating cardiogenic shock: meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 358–360.

Seyfarth

Sibbing

Bauer

et al . A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1584–1588.

10.

GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 673–682.

11.

Uchino

Bellomo

Goldsmith

et al . An assessment of the RIFLE criteria for acute renal failure in hospitalized patients. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 1913–1917.

12.

Levey

Bosch

Lewis

et al . A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 461–470.

13.

Schmidt

Burrell

Roberts

et al . Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 2246–2256.

14.

Burzotta

Trani

Doshi

et al . Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. Int J Cardiol 2015; 201: 684–691.

15.

Rihal

Naidu

Givertz

et al . 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care: endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; affirmation of value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology – Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d’intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: e7–e26.

16.

Kapur

Qiao

Paruchuri

et al . Mechanical pre-conditioning with acute circulatory support before reperfusion limits infarct size in acute myocardial infarction. JACC Heart Fail 2015; 3: 873–882.

17.

Meyns

Stolinski

Leunens

et al . Left ventricular support by catheter-mounted axial flow pump reduces infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41: 1087–1095.

18.

Burkhoff

Sayer

Doshi

et al . Hemodynamics of mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66: 2663–2674.

19.

Lim

Dubois

De Backer

et al . Do all nonsurvivors of cardiogenic shock die with a low cardiac index? Chest 2003; 124: 1885–1891.

20.

Basir

Schreiber

Grines

et al . Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2017; 119: 845–851.

21.

Schroeter

Kohler

Wachter

et al . Use of the Impella device for acute coronary syndrome complicated by cardiogenic shock – experience from a single heart center with analysis of long-term mortality. J Invas Cardiol 2016; 28: 467–472.

22.

Kapur

Paruchuri

Urbano-Morales

et al . Mechanically unloading the left ventricle before coronary reperfusion reduces left ventricular wall stress and myocardial infarct size. Circulation 2013; 128: 328–336.

23.

Abaunza

Kabbani

Nypaver

et al . Incidence and prognosis of vascular complications after percutaneous placement of left ventricular assist device. J Vasc Surg 2015; 62: 417–423.

24.

Mohite

Fatullayev

Maunz

et al . Distal limb perfusion: Achilles’ heel in peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Artif Organs 2014; 38: 940–944.