Comparison of Mechanical Support with Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support in Post-Cardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock: A Propensity Scoring Matching Analysis.

Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with post-cardiac arrest CS following AMI (May 2015 to May 2020). Patients were supported either with Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS. Outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. 159 patients were included (Impella, n = 105; ECLS, n = 54). Hospital and 12-month survival rates were comparable in the Impella and the ECLS groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.3, respectively). After adjustment for baseline differences, both groups demonstrated comparable hospital and 12-month survival (p = 0.36 and p = 0.64, respectively). Impella patients had a significantly greater left ventricle ejection-fraction (LVEF) improvement at 96 h (p < 0.01 vs. p = 0.44 in ECLS) and significantly fewer device-associated complications than ECLS patients (15.2% versus 35.2%, p < 0.01 for relevant access site bleeding, 7.6% versus 20.4%, p = 0.04 for limb ischemia needing intervention). In subgroup analyses, Impella was associated with better survival in patients with lower-risk features (lactate < 8.6 mmol/L, time from collapse to return of spontaneous circulation < 28 min, vasoactive score < 46 and Horowitz index > 182). In conclusion, the use of Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS in post-cardiac arrest CS after AMI was associated with comparable adjusted hospital and 12-month survival. Impella patients had a greater LVEF improvement than ECLS patients. Device-related access-site complications occurred more frequently in patients with ECLS than Impella support.

Left Ventricle Architecture and Valvular Integrity Following Microaxial Mechanical Support: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study.

Although the use of microaxilar mechanical circulatory support systems may improve the outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), little is known about its effect on the long-term structural integrity of left ventricular (LV) valves as well as on the development of LV-architecture. Therefore, we aimed to study the integrity of the LV valves and architecture and function after Impella support. Thus, 84 consecutive patients were monitored over two years having received ImpellaTM CP (n = 24) or 2.5 (n = 60) for refractory CS (n = 62) or for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (n = 22) followed by optimal medical treatment. Beside a significant increase in LV ejection fraction after two years (p ≤ 0.03 vs. pre-implantation), we observed a statistically significant decrease in LV dilation (p < 0.001) and severity of mitral valve regurgitation (p = 0.007) in the two-year follow-up period, suggesting an improved LV architecture. Neither the duration of support, nor the size of the Impella device or the indication for its use revealed any devastating impact on aortic or mitral valve integrity. These findings indicate that Impella device is a safe means of support of LV-function without detrimental long-term effects on the structural integrity of LV valves regardless of the size of the device or the indication of support.

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.

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.

Early Impella Support in Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction Improves Short- and Long-Term Survival.

OBJECTIVES: Early mechanical circulatory support with Impella may improve survival outcomes in the setting of postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, the optimal timing to initiate mechanical circulatory support in this particular setting remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare survival outcomes of patients supported with Impella 2.5 before percutaneous coronary intervention (pre-PCI) with those supported after percutaneous coronary intervention (post-PCI). DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study between September 2014 and December 2019 admitted to the Cardiac Arrest Center in Marburg, Germany. PATIENTS: Out of 2,105 patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to acute myocardial infarction with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock between September 2014 and December 2019 and admitted to our regional cardiac arrest center, 81 consecutive patients receiving Impella 2.5 during admission coronary angiogram were identified. OUTCOMES/MEASUREMENTS: Survival outcomes were compared between those with Impella support pre-PCI to those with support post-PCI. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 81 consecutive patients with infarct-related postcardiac arrest shock supported with Impella 2.5 during admission coronary angiogram were included. All patients were in profound cardiogenic shock requiring catecholamines at admission. Overall survival to discharge and at 6 months was 40.7% and 38.3%, respectively. Patients in the pre-PCI group had a higher survival to discharge and at 6 months as compared to patients of the post-PCI group (54.3% vs 30.4%; p = 0.04 and 51.4% vs 28.2%; p = 0.04, respectively). Furthermore, the patients in the early support group demonstrated a greater functional recovery of the left ventricle and a better restoration of the end-organ function when Impella support was initiated prior to percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the early initiation of mechanical circulatory support with Impella 2.5 prior to percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved hospital and 6-month survival in patients with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support.

BACKGROUND: Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with Impella in this setting are lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate as well as to compare the prognostic accuracy of acute physiology and chronic health II (APACHE II), simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), CardShock, the prediction of cardiogenic shock outcome for AMI patients salvaged by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and the survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (SAVE) score in patients with OHCA refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella 2.5 or CP. METHODS: Retrospective study of 65 consecutive Impella 2.5 and 32 CP patients treated in our cardiac arrest center from September 2015 until June 2020. RESULTS: Overall survival to discharge was 44.3%. The expected mortality according to scores was SOFA 70%, SAPS II 90%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 50%, and SAVE score 70% in the 2.5 group; SOFA 70%, SAPS II 85%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 75%, and SAVE score 70% in the CP group. The ENCOURAGE score was the most effective predictive model of mortality outcome presenting a moderate area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, followed by the CardShock, APACHE II, IABP, and SAPS score. These derived an AUC between 0.71 and 0.78. The SOFA and the SAVE scores failed to predict the outcome in this particular setting of refractory CS after OHCA due to an AMI. CONCLUSION: The available intensive care and newly developed CS scores offered only a moderate prognostic accuracy for outcomes in OHCA patients with refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella. A new score is needed in order to guide the therapy in these patients.

Comparison of mechanical circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella for patients with cardiogenic shock: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported with either Impella or vaECMO. METHODS: Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with CS, from September 2014 to September 2019. Patients were assisted with either Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO. Patients supported ultimately with both devices were analyzed according to the first device implanted. Primary outcomes were hospital and 6-month survival. Secondary endpoints were complications. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 423 patients were included (Impella, n = 300 and vaECMO, n = 123). Survival rates were similar in both groups (hospital survival: Impella 47.7% and vaECMO 37.3%, p = 0.07; 6-month survival Impella 45.7% and vaECMO 35.8%, p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in survival rates, even after adjustment for baseline differences (hospital survival: Impella 50.6% and vaECMO 38.6%, p = 0.16; 6-month survival Impella 45.8% and vaECMO 38.6%, p = 0.43). Access-site bleeding and leg ischemia occurred more frequently in patients with vaECMO (17% versus 7.3%, p = 0.004; 17% versus 7.7%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients with CS, treatment with Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO was associated with similar hospital and 6-month survival rates. Device-related access-site vascular complications occurred more frequently in the vaECMO group. A randomized trial is warranted to examine the effects of these devices on outcomes and to determine the optimal device choice in patients with CS.

Impact of microaxillar mechanical left ventricular support on renal resistive index in patients with cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction: a pilot trial to predict renal organ dysfunction in cardiogenic shock.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of left ventricular support with the microaxial left ventricular pump using the Impella device on the renal resistive index assessed by Doppler ultrasonography in haemodynamically stable patients with cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction. METHODS: A non-randomised interventional single-centre study. Consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock supported with an Impella were included during May 2018 and October 2018. The renal resistive index determined as a quotient of (peak systolic velocity - end diastolic velocity)/ peak systolic velocity was obtained using Doppler ultrasound; invasive blood pressure was determined in radial artery simultaneously for safety reasons. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients were measured. The renal resistive index was determined in both kidneys in 13 patients and for one kidney in two patients, respectively. The mean difference between right and left renal resistive index was 0.026 ± 0.023 (P=0.72). When increasing the Impella microaxillar mechanical support by a mean of 0.44 L/min (±0.2 L/min), the renal resistive index decreased significantly from 0.66 ± 0.08 to 0.62 ± 0.06 (P<0.001) consistently in all patients, whereas systolic or diastolic blood pressure remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Microaxillar mechanical support by the Impella device in haemodynamically stable patients with cardiogenic shock led to a significant reduction of the renal resistive index without affecting systolic or diastolic blood pressure. This observation is consistent with the notion that Impella support may promote renal organ protection by enhancing renal perfusion.

Impella support following emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the feasibility and outcomes of Impella 2.5 support in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS), who underwent emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients with severe AS and CS who underwent Impella 2.5 support following emergency BAV with or without subsequent PCI. Outcome data included 30-day outcomes, periprocedural as well as throughout the circulatory support period complications. Eight patients with severe AS and CS were identified. Impella 2.5 implantation was successful following emergency BAV in all patients attempted. Additional PCI was performed in four patients. No periprocedural deaths or periprocedural neurologic events occurred. Mean procedure time was 125.9 min (range 64-210 min). Mortality at 30 days was 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Impella 2.5 can be used as hemodynamic support in patients with severe AS and CS following emergency percutaneous BAV and may help to improve tolerability of PCI in these high-risk patients.

Impella support compared to medical treatment for post-cardiac arrest shock after out of hospital cardiac arrest.

AIMS: To compare survival outcomes of Impella support and medical treatment in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: Retrospective single center study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) due to AMI with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock between September 2014 and September 2016. Patients were either assisted with Impella or received medical treatment only. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 90 consecutive patients with post-cardiac arrest shock due to AMI were included; 27 patients in the Impella group and 63 patients in the medical treatment group. Patients with Impella support had a longer duration of low-flow time (29.54 ±â€¯10.21 versus 17.57 ±â€¯8.3 min, p < 0.001), higher lactate levels on admission (4.75 [IQR 3.8-11] versus 3.6 [IQR 2.6-3.9] mmol/L, p = 0.03) and lower baseline systolic LVEF (25% [IQR 25-35] versus 45% [IQR 35-51.25], p < 0.001) as compared to patients without circulatory support. After propensity score matching, patients with Impella support had a significantly higher survival to hospital discharge (65% versus 20%, p = 0.01) and 6-months survival (60% versus 20%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The results from our study suggest that Impella support is associated with significantly better survival to hospital discharge and at 6 months compared to medical treatment in OHCA patients admitted with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock and AMI.

New Task Force Criteria Provide Evolution in Diagnosis of Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy in Patients without Typical Progression of the Disease.

BACKGROUND The original Task Force Criteria from 1994 for the clinical diagnosis of ARVC were highly specific and based on structural, histological, EKG, and familial features of disease. However, recommendations for clinical diagnosis and management of ARVC are sparse and lacked sensitivity for early disease. CASE REPORT Ventricular electrical instability and sudden cardiac death are the hallmarks of ARVC, and are often present before structural abnormalities. In this case report, we describe a patient who had detectable electrical abnormalities and structural changes that remained unchanged for over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS The disease progression in this case was defined as the development of a new 2010 TFC, which was absent at enrolment in 1994 and in 2008.