Majed Afana1, Mahmoud Altawil1, Mir Basir1, Mohammad Alqarqaz1, Khaldoon Alaswad1, Marvin Eng1,2, William W O'Neill1,2, Robert J Lederman3, Adam B Greenbaum4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA. 2. Center for Structural Heart Disease, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA. 3. Cardiovascular Branch, Division of Intramural Research, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 4. Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe the feasibility and early outcomes of transcaval access for delivery of emergency mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock. BACKGROUND: Vascular access for implantation of MCS in patients with cardiogenic shock is often challenging due to peripheral arterial disease and vasoconstriction. Transcaval delivery of MCS may be an alternative. We describe a series of patients we implanted an Impella 5.0 device, on-table without CT planning, through a percutaneous transcaval access route. METHODS: Ten patients with progressive or refractory cardiogenic shock underwent Impella 5.0 implantation via transcaval access. Demographic, clinical and procedural variables and in-hospital outcomes were collected. RESULTS: All ten underwent emergency implantation of the 7 mm diameter Impella 5.0 device via transcaval access. Six were women, with median age of 55.5 years (range, 29-69). Cardiogenic shock was attributed to idiopathic nonischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 4), myocarditis (n = 2), ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 2), heart transplant rejection (n = 1), and unknown etiology (n = 1). Median duration of support was 92.1 hr (range, 21.2-165.4). Seven (70%) survived to device explant, with six (60%) surviving to access port closure and discharge. Among survivors, five recovered heart function and one received destination therapy left ventricular assist device. CONCLUSIONS: Transcaval access is feasible for emergency nonsurgical implantation of the Impella 5.0 device in cardiogenic shock with small or diseased iliofemoral arteries. This allows early institution of higher-flow MCS than conventional femoral artery implantation of the 3.5 L Impella CP device, and enables a bridge-to-recovery or bridge-to-destination strategy.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe the feasibility and early outcomes of transcaval access for delivery of emergency mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock. BACKGROUND: Vascular access for implantation of MCS in patients with cardiogenic shock is often challenging due to peripheral arterial disease and vasoconstriction. Transcaval delivery of MCS may be an alternative. We describe a series of patients we implanted an Impella 5.0 device, on-table without CT planning, through a percutaneous transcaval access route. METHODS: Ten patients with progressive or refractory cardiogenic shock underwent Impella 5.0 implantation via transcaval access. Demographic, clinical and procedural variables and in-hospital outcomes were collected. RESULTS: All ten underwent emergency implantation of the 7 mm diameter Impella 5.0 device via transcaval access. Six were women, with median age of 55.5 years (range, 29-69). Cardiogenic shock was attributed to idiopathic nonischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 4), myocarditis (n = 2), ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 2), heart transplant rejection (n = 1), and unknown etiology (n = 1). Median duration of support was 92.1 hr (range, 21.2-165.4). Seven (70%) survived to device explant, with six (60%) surviving to access port closure and discharge. Among survivors, five recovered heart function and one received destination therapy left ventricular assist device. CONCLUSIONS: Transcaval access is feasible for emergency nonsurgical implantation of the Impella 5.0 device in cardiogenic shock with small or diseased iliofemoral arteries. This allows early institution of higher-flow MCS than conventional femoral artery implantation of the 3.5 L Impella CP device, and enables a bridge-to-recovery or bridge-to-destination strategy.
Authors: Sean van Diepen; Jason N Katz; Nancy M Albert; Timothy D Henry; Alice K Jacobs; Navin K Kapur; Ahmet Kilic; Venu Menon; E Magnus Ohman; Nancy K Sweitzer; Holger Thiele; Jeffrey B Washam; Mauricio G Cohen Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Adam B Greenbaum; William W O'Neill; Gaetano Paone; Mayra E Guerrero; Janet F Wyman; R Lebron Cooper; Robert J Lederman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jin M Cheng; Corstiaan A den Uil; Sanne E Hoeks; Martin van der Ent; Lucia S D Jewbali; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-07-18 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Miriam Abaunza; Loay S Kabbani; Timothy Nypaver; Adam Greenbaum; Praveen Balraj; Sherazuddin Qureshi; Mohammed A Alqarqaz; Alexander D Shepard Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2015-06-06 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.983