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.

Outcomes of systemic bivalirudin and sodium bicarbonate purge solution for Impella 5.5.

BACKGROUND: Impella 5.5 (Abiomed; Danvers, MA) (IMP5) is a commonly used, surgically implanted, tMCS device that requires systemic anticoagulation and purge solution to avoid pump failure. To avoid heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) from unfractionated heparin (UFH) use, our program has explored the utility of bivalirudin (BIV) for systemic anticoagulation and sodium bicarbonate-dextrose purge solution (SBPS) in IMP5.5. METHODS: This single center, retrospective study included 34 patients supported on IMP5.5 with BIV based AC and SBPS between December 1st 2020 to December 1st 2021.The efficacy and safety end points were incidence of development of HIT, Tissue Plasminogen Activator (tPA) use for suspected pump thrombosis, stroke, and device failure as well as clinically significant bleeding. RESULTS: The median duration of IMP5.5 support was 9.8 days (IQR: 6-15). Most patients were bridged to HTX (58%) followed by recovery (27%) and LVAD implantation (15%). Patients were therapeutic on bivalirudin for 64% of their IMP5.5 support. One patient (2.9%) suffered from ischemic stroke and 26.5% (9) patients developed clinically significant bleeding. tPA was administered to 7(21%) patients. One patient in the entire cohort developed HIT. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience supports the use of systemic BIV and SBPS as a method to avoid heparin exposure in a patient population predisposed to the development of HIT.

Comparison of two individualized antithrombotic protocols in HeartWare HVAD recipients.

We previously reported low rates of pump thrombosis and hemorrhagic stroke, but increased bleeding, under our original antithrombosis protocol (P1) in HeartWare recipients. We designed and implemented a revised protocol (P2) to reduce complexity and bleeding. Thrombelastography and PFA-100 guide antiplatelet titration. Goals for P2 were altered to decrease antiplatelet use and anticoagulation intensity. We compared the incidence and rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), embolic (eCVA) and hemorrhagic (hCVA) stroke, pump thrombosis (PT), and total bleeding (GIB+hCVA), total thrombosis (eCVA+PT), and total events between P1 and P2. Laboratory and medication data were assessed. Patients with and without hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs) were compared. The study included 123 patients (P1: 65; P2: 58). GIB rate decreased (P1: 0.66; P2 0.30 EPPY, P = .003). CVA rates and incidence were statistically similar, although hCVA incidence increased (P1: 3%; P2: 12%, P = .06). Incidence (P1: 3%; P2: 16%, P = .02) and rate (P1: 0.03; P2: 0.12 EPPY, P = .08) of PT increased. Incidence and rate of overall HRAEs and thrombotic events were similar, while bleeding rate decreased (P1: 0.69; P2: 0.40 EPPY, P = .02). Twelve-month medication burden decreased. Compared to non-HRAE patients, patients with bleeding HRAEs had more antiplatelet and pentoxifylline use, but less statin use; and lower PFAs. Patients with thrombotic HRAEs had less dual antiplatelet use, lower INRs, R-times, and PFA-ADP values. A revised antithrombotic protocol decreased GIB and overall hemorrhagic HRAE rate and medication burden. Unfortunately, PT increased. Non-HRAE and HRAE patients differed in anticoagulation and antiplatelet intensity. These differences will guide the revision of P2.

A Minimally Invasive Approach to Left Ventricular Assist Device Insertion Facilitates Subsequent Explant.

A minimally invasive approach to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion may benefit patients at the time of implant, but whether the approach to LVAD insertion influences the outcome of subsequent cardiovascular reoperations is unknown. Here we present the case of a 50-year-old male who underwent LVAD insertion through a minimally invasive approach and subsequently had left ventricular recovery. LVAD explant was performed without the use of any blood products or inotropic support. This case demonstrates that a minimally invasive approach to LVAD insertion may also facilitate subsequent device explant.