V Vivian Dimas1, Brian H Morray2, Dennis W Kim3, Christopher S Almond4, Shabana Shahanavaz5, Sebastian C Tume6, Lynn F Peng4, Doff B McElhinney7, Henri Justino6. 1. Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 2. Division of Cardiology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA. 3. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 4. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Lucille Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Palo Alto, CA. 5. Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 6. Lillie Frank Abercrombie Section of Pediatric Cardiology, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lucille Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Palo Alto, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to review the use of Impella devices (Abiomed Inc, Danvers, MA) for temporary circulatory support in pediatric and adolescent patients (age ≤ 21 yrs). BACKGROUND: Options for minimally invasive circulatory support in children are limited, and published data are confined to case reports and small case series. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter review of Impella implants in pediatric and adolescent patients from 2009-15, using standardized data collection and INTERMACS definitions. RESULTS: A total of 39 implants were performed in 38 patients from 16 centers. Median age and weight were 16 yrs (4-21 yrs) and 62 kg (15-134 kg). The primary indication for implant was cardiogenic shock in 28 patients (72%). Cardiac allograft rejection, myocarditis, or cardiomyopathy were the underlying diagnosis in 23 patients (59%); 11 patients had congenital heart disease. The median duration of support was 45 hr (1-1224 hr). Indications for explant included ventricular recovery in 16 patients, transition to another device in 12, death in 5, and transplant in 1. Survival was 85% at 7 days and 68% at 30 days. Major adverse events occurred in 8 patients: hemolysis in 3, bleeding in 2, stroke in 1 (unclear if related to Impella), sepsis in 1, and critical leg ischemia in 1. An increase in aortic regurgitation was noted in three patients, with no evidence of valve injury. CONCLUSION: Temporary circulatory support with Impella devices is feasible in pediatric and adolescent patients, with acceptable risk profiles. More experience and follow up is needed to improve technical performance and patient selection.
OBJECTIVES: The objective was to review the use of Impella devices (Abiomed Inc, Danvers, MA) for temporary circulatory support in pediatric and adolescent patients (age ≤ 21 yrs). BACKGROUND: Options for minimally invasive circulatory support in children are limited, and published data are confined to case reports and small case series. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter review of Impella implants in pediatric and adolescent patients from 2009-15, using standardized data collection and INTERMACS definitions. RESULTS: A total of 39 implants were performed in 38 patients from 16 centers. Median age and weight were 16 yrs (4-21 yrs) and 62 kg (15-134 kg). The primary indication for implant was cardiogenic shock in 28 patients (72%). Cardiac allograft rejection, myocarditis, or cardiomyopathy were the underlying diagnosis in 23 patients (59%); 11 patients had congenital heart disease. The median duration of support was 45 hr (1-1224 hr). Indications for explant included ventricular recovery in 16 patients, transition to another device in 12, death in 5, and transplant in 1. Survival was 85% at 7 days and 68% at 30 days. Major adverse events occurred in 8 patients: hemolysis in 3, bleeding in 2, stroke in 1 (unclear if related to Impella), sepsis in 1, and critical leg ischemia in 1. An increase in aortic regurgitation was noted in three patients, with no evidence of valve injury. CONCLUSION: Temporary circulatory support with Impella devices is feasible in pediatric and adolescent patients, with acceptable risk profiles. More experience and follow up is needed to improve technical performance and patient selection.
Authors: Seth A Hollander; Olaf Reinhartz; Clifford Chin; Justin Yeh; Katsuhide Maeda; Hari Mallidi; Daniel Bernstein; David Rosenthal Journal: Pediatr Transplant Date: 2011-09-16
Authors: Lucas J Eastaugh; Ravi R Thiagarajan; Jeffrey R Darst; Doff B McElhinney; James E Lock; Audrey C Marshall Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Anthony Lemaire; Mark B Anderson; Leonard Y Lee; Peter Scholz; Thomas Prendergast; Andrew Goodman; Ann Marie Lozano; Alan Spotnitz; George Batsides Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Elizabeth D Blume; David N Rosenthal; Joseph W Rossano; J Timothy Baldwin; Pirooz Eghtesady; David L S Morales; Ryan S Cantor; Jennifer Conway; Angela Lorts; Christopher S Almond; David C Naftel; James K Kirklin Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Thomas Palazzolo; Matthew Hirschhorn; Ellen Garven; Steven Day; Randy M Stevens; Joseph Rossano; Vakhtang Tchantchaleishvili; Amy L Throckmorton Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 2.663
Authors: Joshua M Friedland-Little; Anna Joong; Svetlana B Shugh; Matthew J O'Connor; Neha Bansal; Ryan R Davies; Michelle S Ploutz Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 1.838
Authors: F S van den Brink; A D Magan; P G Noordzij; C Zivelonghi; P Agostoni; F D Eefting; J M Ten Berg; M J Suttorp; B R Rensing; J P van Kuijk; P Klein; E Scholten; J A S van der Heyden Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Martin Stoiber; Philipp Aigner; Christian Grasl; Michael Röhrich; Francesco Moscato; Heinrich Schima Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 3.094
Authors: Uri Pollak; Yael Feinstein; Candace N Mannarino; Mary E McBride; Malaika Mendonca; Eitan Keizman; David Mishaly; Grace van Leeuwen; Peter P Roeleveld; Lena Koers; Darren Klugman Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 3.569