RATIONALE: Short-term mechanical circulatory support is increasingly used in the management of cardiogenic shock, but data from controlled studies are sparse. Thus, real-life data on complication rates and predictors of adverse outcome are important. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyse the experience with Impella devices in the management of profound cardiogenic shock. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective study of 109 consecutive patients with severe shock after myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, or cardiac surgery. Possible device-related complications were registered and predictors of death while on Impella support and within 180 days were identified. In 79 patients (72%) cardiogenic shock was caused by myocardial infarction, acute heart failure in 16 (15%) and post-cardiotomy shock in 14 patients (13%). Thirty-five patients (32%) were comatose after cardiac arrest and in seven, the Impella was placed during chest compression. Mean age was 62±12 years, mean arterial pressure was 57±13 mmHg, pH 7.19±0.17 and lactate 7.5±5.7 mmol/l (range 1.8-30.0 mmol/l) at placement. During Impella therapy, 26 patients (28%) died among patients with myocardial infarction or acute heart failure. Of data available prior to placement lactate (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.25, P=0.004) was the only predictor of death on support. During support, five patients (5%) developed leg ischaemia requiring intervention. Bleeding from the Impella insertion site was seen in 14 patients (13%). CONCLUSION: Impella treatment is feasible in profound cardiogenic shock at an acceptable rate of complications. Despite an aggressive approach to restore cardiac output, mortality was high. Besides the severity of lactic acidosis there were no strong predictors of early death.
RATIONALE: Short-term mechanical circulatory support is increasingly used in the management of cardiogenic shock, but data from controlled studies are sparse. Thus, real-life data on complication rates and predictors of adverse outcome are important. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyse the experience with Impella devices in the management of profound cardiogenic shock. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective study of 109 consecutive patients with severe shock after myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, or cardiac surgery. Possible device-related complications were registered and predictors of death while on Impella support and within 180 days were identified. In 79 patients (72%) cardiogenic shock was caused by myocardial infarction, acute heart failure in 16 (15%) and post-cardiotomy shock in 14 patients (13%). Thirty-five patients (32%) were comatose after cardiac arrest and in seven, the Impella was placed during chest compression. Mean age was 62±12 years, mean arterial pressure was 57±13 mmHg, pH 7.19±0.17 and lactate 7.5±5.7 mmol/l (range 1.8-30.0 mmol/l) at placement. During Impella therapy, 26 patients (28%) died among patients with myocardial infarction or acute heart failure. Of data available prior to placement lactate (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.25, P=0.004) was the only predictor of death on support. During support, five patients (5%) developed leg ischaemia requiring intervention. Bleeding from the Impella insertion site was seen in 14 patients (13%). CONCLUSION: Impella treatment is feasible in profound cardiogenic shock at an acceptable rate of complications. Despite an aggressive approach to restore cardiac output, mortality was high. Besides the severity of lactic acidosis there were no strong predictors of early death.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiogenic shock; left ventricular assist device
Authors: Andreas Schäfer; Nikos Werner; Daniel Burkhoff; Jan-Thorben Sieweke; Andreas Zietzer; Maryna Masyuk; Nanna Louise Junker Udesen; Ralf Westenfeld; Jacob Eifer Møller Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2020-05-14
Authors: David Santer; Anita Boltres; Luca Koechlin; Patrick Hunziker; Raban Jeger; Markus Maurer; Martin Grapow; Friedrich Eckstein; Oliver Reuthebuch Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2020-04-29
Authors: Dagmar M Ouweneel; Justin de Brabander; Mina Karami; Krischan D Sjauw; Annemarie E Engström; M Marije Vis; Joanna J Wykrzykowska; Marcel A Beijk; Karel T Koch; Jan Baan; Robbert J de Winter; Jan J Piek; Wim K Lagrand; Thomas Gv Cherpanath; Antoine Hg Driessen; Riccardo Cocchieri; Bas Ajm de Mol; Jan Gp Tijssen; José Ps Henriques Journal: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care Date: 2018-11-07
Authors: Fernando Luís Scolari; Daniel Schneider; Débora Vacaro Fogazzi; Miguel Gus; Marciane Maria Rover; Marcely Gimenes Bonatto; Gustavo Neves de Araújo; André Zimerman; Daniel Sganzerla; Lívia Adams Goldraich; Cassiano Teixeira; Gilberto Friedman; Carisi Anne Polanczyk; Luis Eduardo Rohde; Regis Goulart Rosa; Rodrigo Vugman Wainstein Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Mehmet Oezkur; Sara Reda; Heiko Rühl; Nils Theuerkauf; Stefan Kreyer; Georg Daniel Duerr; Efstratios Charitos; Miriam Silaschi; Marta Medina; Sebastian Zimmer; Christian Putensen; Hendrik Treede Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ole Kristian Lerche Helgestad; Jakob Josiassen; Christian Hassager; Lisette Okkels Jensen; Lene Holmvang; Nanna Louise Junker Udesen; Henrik Schmidt; Hanne Berg Ravn; Jacob Eifer Moller Journal: Open Heart Date: 2020-03-04