Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single-center 137 patient experience.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 and identified risk factors for in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Adults with CS who were supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 at a single institution were included. Patients were stratified into three groups according to their CS etiology: (1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (2) acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), and (3) postcardiotomy (PC). The primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes included adverse events during Impella support and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-seven patients with CS secondary to AMI (n = 47), ADHF (n = 86), and PC (n = 4) were included. The ADHF group had the highest survival rates at all time points. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was the most common complication during Impella support in all 3 groups. Increased rates of AKI and de novo renal replacement therapy were observed in the PC group, and the AMI group experienced a higher incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion. Multivariable analysis demonstrated diabetes mellitus, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality, but the etiology of CS did not impact mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Impella 5.0 and 5.5 provide effective mechanical support for patients with CS with favorable outcomes, with nearly two-thirds of patients alive at 180 days. Diabetes, elevated pre-insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre-insertion serum creatinine are strong risk factors for in-hospital mortality.

Concomitant use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial assist device support for cardiogenic shock.

Objectives: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with this support strategy have not been well described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support from December 2020 to January 2023. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival at 90 days postdischarge (P = .267) with similar destinations after support (P = .220). Patients with AMI-CS initially supported with VA-ECMO were less likely to survive 90 days postdischarge (P = .038) when compared with other cohorts. Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (P =.013; P = .030). Subanalysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated HF and de novo HF demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusions: VA-ECMO with concomitant percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device support can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy. AMI-CS patients with initial VA-ECMO support have increased mortality in comparison to other cohorts. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with this support strategy.

Cardiogenic shock etiology and exit strategy impact survival in patients with Impella 5.5.

BACKGROUND: Despite historical differences in cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes by etiology, outcomes by CS etiology have yet to be described in patients supported by temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella 5.5. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify differences in survival and post-support destination for these patients in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) CS at a high-volume, tertiary, transplant center. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received Impella 5.5 at our center from November 2020 to June 2022 was conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients underwent Impella 5.5 implantation for CS; 23 (34%) for AMI and 44 (66%) for ADHF. AMI patients presented with higher SCAI stage, pre-implant lactate, and rate of prior MCS devices, and fewer days from admission to implantation. Survival was lower for AMI patients at 30 days, 90 days, and discharge. No difference in time to all-cause mortality was found when excluding patients receiving transplant. There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups. CONCLUSIONS: ADHF-CS patients with Impella 5.5 support have a significantly higher rate of survival than patients with AMI-CS. ADHF patients were successfully bridged to heart transplant more often than AMI patients, contributing to increased survival.

Concomitant Use of VA-ECMO and Impella Support for Cardiogenic Shock.

Background: VA-ECMO with concomitant Impella support (ECpella) is an emerging treatment modality for cardiogenic shock (CS). Survival outcomes by CS etiology with ECpella support have not been well-described. Methods: This study was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) supported with ECpella from December 2020 to January 2023. Primary outcomes included 90-day survival post-discharge and destination after support. Secondary outcomes included complications post-ECpella support. Results: A total of 44 patients were included (AMI-CS, n = 20, and ADHF-CS, n = 24). Patients with AMI-CS and ADHF-CS had similar survival 90 days post-discharge (p = .267) with similar destinations after ECpella support (p = .220). Limb ischemia and acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in patients presenting with AMI-CS (p=.013; p = .030). Patients with initial Impella support were more likely to survive ECpella support and be bridged to transplant (p=.033) and less likely to have a cerebrovascular accident (p=.016). Sub-analysis of ADHF-CS patients into acute-on-chronic decompensated heart failure and de novo heart failure demonstrated no difference in survival or destination. Conclusion: ECpella can be used to successfully manage patients with CS. There is no difference in survival or destination for AMI-CS and ADHF-CS in patients with ECpella support. Patients with initial Impella support are more likely to survive ECpella support and bridge to transplant. Future multicenter studies are required to fully analyze the differences between AMI-CS and ADHF-CS with ECpella support.