William W O'Neill1, Cindy Grines2, Theodore Schreiber3, Jeffrey Moses4, Brijeshwar Maini5, Simon R Dixon6, E Magnus Ohman7. 1. Center for Structural Heart Disease, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI. 2. Northwell Health, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY. 3. Detroit Medical Center, Heart Hospital, Detroit, MI. 4. Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 5. Delray Medical Center, Florida Atlantic University, Delray Beach, FL. 6. Beaumont Hospital Royal Oak, Royal Oak, MI. 7. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: ohman001@mc.duke.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) rapidly deploys mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). We present findings from a quality improvement (IQ) registry for US patients with AMICS who received Impella devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2009 to December 2016, 46,949 patients from 1010US hospitals were entered into the IQ registry; of these, 15,259 had AMICS. Limited de-identified patient information, product performance, and survival to explantation were recorded. Of those with AMICS, 51% survived to explantation of PVAD. There was a significant difference between survival at explantation with quintile volume at hospitals (range: 0-100%; 30% survival rate in lowest quintile vs. 76% in top quintile; P<.0001). Use of the Impella device as first-line treatment pre-PCI was associated with a 59% survival rate, compared with 52% when used as a salvage strategy (P<.001). The survival rate among those who received hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters was 63% as compared with 49% in those who did not (P<.0001). Overall institutional Impella volume was related to survival (56% survival at sites with >7/year vs. 51% at sites with ≤1; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this early clinical experience with Impella support for AMICS, wide variation in outcomes existed across centers. Survival was higher when Impella was used as first support strategy, when invasive hemodynamic monitoring was used, and at centers with higher Impella implantation volume.
BACKGROUND: The Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) rapidly deploys mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). We present findings from a quality improvement (IQ) registry for US patients with AMICS who received Impella devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2009 to December 2016, 46,949 patients from 1010US hospitals were entered into the IQ registry; of these, 15,259 had AMICS. Limited de-identified patient information, product performance, and survival to explantation were recorded. Of those with AMICS, 51% survived to explantation of PVAD. There was a significant difference between survival at explantation with quintile volume at hospitals (range: 0-100%; 30% survival rate in lowest quintile vs. 76% in top quintile; P<.0001). Use of the Impella device as first-line treatment pre-PCI was associated with a 59% survival rate, compared with 52% when used as a salvage strategy (P<.001). The survival rate among those who received hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters was 63% as compared with 49% in those who did not (P<.0001). Overall institutional Impella volume was related to survival (56% survival at sites with >7/year vs. 51% at sites with ≤1; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this early clinical experience with Impella support for AMICS, wide variation in outcomes existed across centers. Survival was higher when Impella was used as first support strategy, when invasive hemodynamic monitoring was used, and at centers with higher Impella implantation volume.
Authors: Manal Alasnag; Alexander G Truesdell; Holli Williams; Sara C Martinez; Syeda Kashfi Qadri; John P Skendelas; William A Jakobleff; Mirvat Alasnag Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Ovidiu Chioncel; Sean P Collins; Andrew P Ambrosy; Peter S Pang; Razvan I Radu; Elena-Laura Antohi; Josep Masip; Javed Butler; Vlad Anton Iliescu Journal: Am J Ther Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.688
Authors: Alexandra E Sperry; Matthew Williams; Pavan Atluri; Wilson Y Szeto; Marisa Cevasco; Christian A Bermudez; Michael A Acker; Michael Ibrahim Journal: Curr Heart Fail Rep Date: 2021-05-06
Authors: Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Abhiram Prasad; Malcolm R Bell; Gurpreet S Sandhu; Mackram F Eleid; Shannon M Dunlay; Gregory J Schears; John M Stulak; Mandeep Singh; Bernard J Gersh; Allan S Jaffe; David R Holmes; Charanjit S Rihal; Gregory W Barsness Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 8.790