Project description:Cardiogenic shock complicates about 5% to 8% of all admissions for acute myocardial infarction, and despite advancement in treatment over the past 50 years, mortality remains unacceptably high. Management with vasoactive agents after revascularization can have its limitations and thus mechanical circulatory support is often initiated. Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) are the devices most commonly used worldwide. IABPs appeared to improve mortality when used along with fibrinolytic therapy but may not when used along with percutaneous coronary interventions. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is utilized in the setting of worsening tissue perfusion despite inotropes and IABP utilization. Although retrospective studies show some mortality benefit, randomized prospective studies have not yet demonstrated ECMO to be advantageous either with or without IABP. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices such as TandemHeart® and Impella are easier to institute than ECMO and are better for hemodynamics compared with the IABP but also have not yet shown a mortality benefit. More randomized studies are needed to define the most appropriate role of the various mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock.
Project description:ObjectiveTo highlight recent developments in the utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies and to discuss trends in MCS use following the changes to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system.BackgroundMCS devices have played an increasingly important role in the treatment of heart failure patients. Over the past several years, technological advancements have led to new developments in MCS devices and expanding indications for MCS use. In October of 2018, the UNOS heart allocation policy was revised to prioritize higher-urgency patients, including those supported with temporary MCS devices. Since then, changes in trends of MCS utilization have been observed.MethodsArticles from the PubMed database regarding the use of MCS devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies were reviewed.ConclusionsOver the past decade, utilization of temporary MCS devices, which include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), has become increasingly common. Recent advancements in MCS include the development of pVADs that can fully unload the left ventricle (LV) as well as devices designed to provide right-sided support. Technological advancements in durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have also led to improved outcomes both on the device and following heart transplantation. Following the 2018 UNOS heart allocation policy revision, the utilization of temporary MCS in advanced heart failure patients has further increased and the proportion of patients bridged directly from a temporary MCS device has exponentially risen. However, following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trends have reversed, with a decrease in the percentage of patients bridged from a temporary MCS device. As long-term data following the allocation policy revision becomes available, future studies should investigate how trends in MCS use for patients with advanced heart failure continue to evolve.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.
Project description:Despite advanced therapies, the mortality of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains around 50%. Mechanical complications of MI are rare nowadays but associated with high mortality in patients who present with CS. Different treatment strategies and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been increasingly used to improve the grim prognosis of refractory CS. This article discusses current evidence regarding the use of MCS in MI complicated by CS, ventricular septal rupture, free wall rupture and acute mitral regurgitation. Device selection should be tailored according to the cause and severity of CS. Early MCS initiation and multidisciplinary team cooperation is mandatory for good results. MCS associated bleeding remains a major complication and an obstacle to better outcomes. Ongoing prospective randomized trials will improve current knowledge regarding MCS indications, timing, and patient selection in the coming years.
Project description:BackgroundMechanical circulatory support (MCS) with the Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) has been associated with higher in-hospital mortality than intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in the Premier Healthcare Database and National Cardiovascular Data Registry.MethodsThe objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe trends and outcomes of Impella usage in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with MCS (Impella or IABP) using real-world observational data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) including hospitalizations for AMICS managed with MCS between January 2012 to December 2017. The primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, transfusion, acute kidney injury, stroke, total costs, and length of stay. Propensity score matching was performed with hierarchical models using risk factor and Elixhauser comorbidity variables.Results and conclusionWe identified 54,480 hospitalizations for AMICS managed with MCS including 5750 (10.5%) utilizing Impella. Throughout the study period, Impella usage increased yearly to 19.9% of AMICS cases in 2017. After propensity score matching, Impella was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.13) and transfusions (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.40-2.78) than IABP, without association with acute kidney injury or stroke. Impella use was associated with higher hospital costs (mean difference $22,416.80 [95% CI $17,029-27,804]). Impella usage for AMICS increased significantly from 2012 to 2017 and was associated with increased in-hospital mortality and costs. Randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to assess the safety and efficacy of Impella.
Project description:We report a case of mechanical prosthetic mitral valve thrombosis in a 52-year-old woman with previous diagnosis of dilated cardiomyopathy, who was supported with advanced mechanical circulatory support after urgent mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) and tricuspid annuloplasty. Difficult weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass needed support with veno-arterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation and Impella (Abiomed Inc, Danvers, MA, USA), so-called ECPELLA. Temporary discontinuation of heparin and massive blood transfusion were necessary due to four times of reoperation for bleeding during ECPELLA support. Poor recovery of cardiac function needed escalation from ECPELLA to extracorporeal biventricular assist device (ex-BiVAD) using two centrifugal pumps on Day 12. After gradual decrease in the left ventricular assist device flow, transesophageal echocardiography and fluoroscopic images revealed the stuck leaflets of the mitral prosthesis. Therefore, the patient underwent re-MVR with a bioprosthesis on Day 18, followed by continued assistance with ex-BiVAD. The patient was finally weaned from ex-BiVAD on Day 28 and was transferred to the referral hospital for rehabilitation. She was alive in good general condition at 2-year follow-up. It is important to balance the effects of anticoagulation on advanced mechanical circulatory support with ECPELLA, against the side effects of bleeding, especially in post-cardiotomy patients with bleeding tendency. <Learning objective: We should recognize the fatal risks of bleeding and thrombosis during advanced mechanical support, including Impella, VA-ECMO, ECPELLA, and ex-BiVAD, especially in the post-cardiotomy setting. We should also understand the choice of mechanical circulatory support, timely escalation to ex-BiVAD to avoid multiorgan failure, the diagnosis of mechanical mitral prosthetic thrombosed valve using echocardiography and fluoroscopy, and mitral valve replacement in the patient supported with ex-BiVAD.>.
Project description:BACKGROUND:There 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. METHODS:This 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. RESULTS:We 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. CONCLUSION:Despite 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.
Project description:Temporary mechanical circulatory support is a treatment of choice for patients in severe cardiogenic shock. Combining veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with devices that enable left ventricular unloading emerges as a promising strategy to diminish detrimental effect of elevated left ventricular afterload and to improve survival. However, the need to establish multiple arterial access sites remains a major drawback of this approach due to a significant rate of vascular complications. We describe herein a case of a single arterial access for ECLS and intra-aortic balloon pump using axillary artery that may provide a simple, modular and flexible approach for escalation or de-escalation of mechanical circulatory support.