Shiva K Annamalai1, Michele L Esposito1, Lena Jorde1, Theodore Schreiber2, Shelley A Hall3, William W O'Neill4, Navin K Kapur5. 1. Molecular Cardiology Research Institute; Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Working Group; Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Cardiology, Detroit Medical Center/Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 4. Division of Cardiology, Henry Ford Hospital/Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. 5. Molecular Cardiology Research Institute; Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Working Group; Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: nkapur@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myocarditis complicated by cardiogenic shock remains a complex problem. The use of acute mechanical circulatory support devices for cardiogenic shock is growing. We explored the utility of Impella transvalvular microaxial flow catheters in the setting of myocarditis with cardiogenic shock. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 21 sites within the cVAD registry, an ongoing multicenter voluntary registry at sites in North America and Europe that have used Impella in patients with myocarditis. Myocarditis was defined by endomyocardial biopsy (n = 11) or by clinical history without angiographic evidence of coronary disease (n = 23). A total of 34 patients received an Impella 2.5, CP, 5.0, or RP device for cardiogenic shock complicating myocarditis. Baseline characteristics included age 42 ± 17 years, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 18% ± 10%, cardiac index 1.82 ± 0.46 L·min-1·m-2, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 25 ± 7 mm Hg, and lactate 27 ± 31 mg/dL. Before Impella placement, 32% (n = 11) of patients required intra-aortic balloon pump. Mean duration of Impella support was 91 ± 74 hours; 21 of 34 patients (62%) survived the index hospitalization and were discharged with an improved mean LVEF of 37.32% ± 20.31% (P = .001); 15 patients recovered with successful support, 5 patients were transferred to another hospital on initial Impella support, 1 patient underwent orthotopic heart transplantation. Ten patients required transition to another mechanical circulatory support device. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest analysis of Impella-supported myocarditis cases to date. The use of Impella appears to be safe and effective in the settings of myocarditis complicated by cardiogenic shock.
BACKGROUND:Myocarditis complicated by cardiogenic shock remains a complex problem. The use of acute mechanical circulatory support devices for cardiogenic shock is growing. We explored the utility of Impella transvalvular microaxial flow catheters in the setting of myocarditis with cardiogenic shock. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 21 sites within the cVAD registry, an ongoing multicenter voluntary registry at sites in North America and Europe that have used Impella in patients with myocarditis. Myocarditis was defined by endomyocardial biopsy (n = 11) or by clinical history without angiographic evidence of coronary disease (n = 23). A total of 34 patients received an Impella 2.5, CP, 5.0, or RP device for cardiogenic shock complicating myocarditis. Baseline characteristics included age 42 ± 17 years, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 18% ± 10%, cardiac index 1.82 ± 0.46 L·min-1·m-2, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 25 ± 7 mm Hg, and lactate 27 ± 31 mg/dL. Before Impella placement, 32% (n = 11) of patients required intra-aortic balloon pump. Mean duration of Impella support was 91 ± 74 hours; 21 of 34 patients (62%) survived the index hospitalization and were discharged with an improved mean LVEF of 37.32% ± 20.31% (P = .001); 15 patients recovered with successful support, 5 patients were transferred to another hospital on initial Impella support, 1 patient underwent orthotopic heart transplantation. Ten patients required transition to another mechanical circulatory support device. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest analysis of Impella-supported myocarditis cases to date. The use of Impella appears to be safe and effective in the settings of myocarditis complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Authors: Bernhard Wernly; Clemens Seelmaier; David Leistner; Barbara E Stähli; Ingrid Pretsch; Michael Lichtenauer; Christian Jung; Uta C Hoppe; Ulf Landmesser; Holger Thiele; Alexander Lauten Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Shreyas Venkataraman; Abhishek Bhardwaj; Peter Matthew Belford; Benjamin N Morris; David X Zhao; Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.430
Authors: Enrico Ammirati; Maria Frigerio; Leslie T Cooper; Paolo G Camici; Eric D Adler; Cristina Basso; David H Birnie; Michela Brambatti; Matthias G Friedrich; Karin Klingel; Jukka Lehtonen; Javid J Moslehi; Patrizia Pedrotti; Ornella E Rimoldi; Heinz-Peter Schultheiss; Carsten Tschöpe Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Carsten Tschöpe; Enrico Ammirati; Biykem Bozkurt; Alida L P Caforio; Leslie T Cooper; Stephan B Felix; Joshua M Hare; Bettina Heidecker; Stephane Heymans; Norbert Hübner; Sebastian Kelle; Karin Klingel; Henrike Maatz; Abdul S Parwani; Frank Spillmann; Randall C Starling; Hiroyuki Tsutsui; Petar Seferovic; Sophie Van Linthout Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 49.421