RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Biventricular failure is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Limited data regarding the efficacy of biventricular Impella axial flow catheters (BiPella) support for biventricular failure exist. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical utility of percutaneously delivered BiPella as a novel acute mechanical support strategy for patients with cardiogenic shock complicated by biventricular failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 20 patients receiving BiPella for biventricular failure from 5 tertiary-care hospitals in the United States. Left ventricular support was achieved with an Impella 5.0 (n=8), Impella CP (n=11), or Impella 2.5 (n=1). All patients received the Impella RP for right ventricular (RV) support. BiPella use was recorded in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (n=11), advanced heart failure (n=7), and myocarditis (n=2). Mean flows achieved were 3.4±1.2 and 3.5±0.5 for left ventricular and RV devices, respectively. Total in-hospital mortality was 50%. No intraprocedural mortality was observed. Major complications included limb ischemia (n=1), hemolysis (n=6), and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding (n=7). Compared with nonsurvivors, survivors were younger, had a lower number of inotropes or vasopressors used before BiPella, and were more likely to have both devices implanted simultaneously during the same procedure. Compared with nonsurvivors, survivors had lower pulmonary artery pressures and RV stroke work index before BiPella. Indices of RV afterload were quantified for 14 subjects. Among these patients, nonsurvivors had higher pulmonary vascular resistance (6.8; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 5.5-8.1 versus 1.9; 95% CI, 0.8-3.0; P<0.01), effective pulmonary artery elastance (1129; 95% CI, 876-1383 versus 458; 95% CI, 263-653; P<0.01), and lower pulmonary artery compliance (1.5; 95% CI, 0.9-2.1 versus 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-3.6; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest, retrospective analysis of BiPella for cardiogenic shock. BiPella is feasible, reduces cardiac filling pressures and improves cardiac output across a range of causes for cardiogenic shock. Simultaneous left ventricular and RV device implantation and lower RV afterload may be associated with better outcomes with BiPella. Future prospective studies of BiPella for cardiogenic shock are required.
