Literature DB >> 33255393

Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock Patients Undergoing Impella CP Treatment vs. Standard of Care.

Clemens Scherer1,2, Enzo Lüsebrink1,2, Danny Kupka1,2, Thomas J Stocker1,2, Konstantin Stark1,2, Christopher Stremmel1,2, Mathias Orban1,2, Tobias Petzold1,2, Antonia Germayer1,2, Katharina Mauthe1,2, Stefan Kääb1,2, Julinda Mehilli1,2, Daniel Braun1,2, Hans Theiss1,2, Stefan Brunner1,2, Jörg Hausleiter1,2, Steffen Massberg1,2, Martin Orban1,2.   

Abstract

The number of patients treated with the mechanical circulatory support device Impella Cardiac Power (CP) for cardiogenic shock is steadily increasing. The aim of this study was to investigate long-term survival and complications related to this modality. Patients undergoing Impella CP treatment for cardiogenic shock were retrospectively enrolled and matched with cardiogenic shock patients not treated with mechanical circulatory support between 2010 and 2020. Data were collected from the cardiogenic shock registry of the university hospital of Munich (DRKS00015860). 70 patients with refractory cardiogenic shock without mechanical circulatory support were matched with 70 patients treated with Impella CP. At presentation, the mean age was 67 ± 15 years with 80% being male in the group without support and 67 ± 14 years (p = 0.97) with 76% being male (p = 0.68) in the group with Impella. There was no significant difference in the rate of cardiac arrest (47% vs. 51%, p = 0.73) and myocardial infarction was the predominant cause of cardiogenic shock in both groups (70% vs. 77%). A total of 41% of patients without cardiocirculatory support and 54% of patients with Impella support died during the first month (p = 0.17). After one year, mortality rates were similar in both groups (55% in conventional vs. 59% in Impella CP group, p = 0.30) as was mortality rate at long-term 5-years follow-up (64% in conventional vs. 73% in Impella CP group, p = 0.33). The rate of clinically significant bleedings during ICU stay was lower in the conventional group than in the Impella support group (15% vs. 43%, p = 0.002). In this small observational and non-randomized analysis no difference in long-term outcome between patients treated with Impella CP vs. guideline directed cardiogenic shock therapy without mechanical circulatory support could be detected. Care must be taken regarding the high rate of bleeding and vascular complications when using Impella CP. Large, adequately powered studies are urgently needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Impella CP in cardiogenic shock.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Imella; cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support

Year:  2020        PMID: 33255393      PMCID: PMC7760637          DOI: 10.3390/jcm9123803

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Med        ISSN: 2077-0383            Impact factor:   4.241


  29 in total

1.  PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Holger Thiele; Ibrahim Akin; Marcus Sandri; Georg Fuernau; Suzanne de Waha; Roza Meyer-Saraei; Peter Nordbeck; Tobias Geisler; Ulf Landmesser; Carsten Skurk; Andreas Fach; Harald Lapp; Jan J Piek; Marko Noc; Tomaž Goslar; Stephan B Felix; Lars S Maier; Janina Stepinska; Keith Oldroyd; Pranas Serpytis; Gilles Montalescot; Olivier Barthelemy; Kurt Huber; Stephan Windecker; Stefano Savonitto; Patrizia Torremante; Christiaan Vrints; Steffen Schneider; Steffen Desch; Uwe Zeymer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019.

Authors:  David A Baran; Cindy L Grines; Steven Bailey; Daniel Burkhoff; Shelley A Hall; Timothy D Henry; Steven M Hollenberg; Navin K Kapur; William O'Neill; Joseph P Ornato; Kelly Stelling; Holger Thiele; Sean van Diepen; Srihari S Naidu
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2019-05-19       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 3.  Clinical scenarios for use of transvalvular microaxial pumps in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock - A European experienced users working group opinion.

Authors:  Andreas Schäfer; Nikos Werner; Ralf Westenfeld; Jacob Eifer Møller; P Christian Schulze; Konstantinos Karatolios; Federico Pappalardo; Jiri Maly; Dawid Staudacher; Guillaume Lebreton; Clément Delmas; Patrick Hunziker; Michael Fritzenwanger; L Christian Napp; Markus Ferrari; Giuseppe Tarantini
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 4.164

4.  Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial.

Authors:  Holger Thiele; Gerhard Schuler; Franz-Josef Neumann; Jörg Hausleiter; Hans-Georg Olbrich; Bettina Schwarz; Marcus Hennersdorf; Klaus Empen; Georg Fuernau; Steffen Desch; Suzanne de Waha; Ingo Eitel; Rainer Hambrecht; Michael Böhm; Volkhard Kurowski; Bernward Lauer; Hans-Heinrich Minden; Hans-Reiner Figulla; Rüdiger C Braun-Dullaeus; Ruth H Strasser; Kristin Rochor; Sebastian K G Maier; Helge Möllmann; Steffen Schneider; Henning Ebelt; Karl Werdan; Uwe Zeymer
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 4.749

5.  The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Authors:  Amit P Amin; John A Spertus; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar Desai; Frederick A Masoudi; Richard G Bach; Christian McNeely; Firas Al-Badarin; John A House; Hemant Kulkarni; Sunil V Rao
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2019-11-17       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019.

Authors:  Holger Thiele; E Magnus Ohman; Suzanne de Waha-Thiele; Uwe Zeymer; Steffen Desch
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 29.983

7.  A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial and Registry.

Authors:  Lynn A Sleeper; Harmony R Reynolds; Harvey D White; John G Webb; Vladimir Dzavík; Judith S Hochman
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Acute Severe Cardiogenic Shock Treated with the Impella Device.

Authors:  Charlene L Rohm; Bogdan Gadidov; Michael Leitson; Herman E Ray; Rajnish Prasad
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 2.778

9.  One-Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Holger Thiele; Ibrahim Akin; Marcus Sandri; Suzanne de Waha-Thiele; Roza Meyer-Saraei; Georg Fuernau; Ingo Eitel; Peter Nordbeck; Tobias Geisler; Ulf Landmesser; Carsten Skurk; Andreas Fach; Alexander Jobs; Harald Lapp; Jan J Piek; Marko Noc; Tomaž Goslar; Stephan B Felix; Lars S Maier; Janina Stepinska; Keith Oldroyd; Pranas Serpytis; Gilles Montalescot; Olivier Barthelemy; Kurt Huber; Stephan Windecker; Lukas Hunziker; Stefano Savonitto; Patrizia Torremante; Christiaan Vrints; Steffen Schneider; Uwe Zeymer; Steffen Desch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-08-25       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Survival after refractory cardiogenic shock is comparable in patients with Impella and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation when adjusted for SAVE score.

Authors:  Petter Schiller; Laila Hellgren; Per Vikholm
Journal:  Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care       Date:  2018-11-08
View more
  5 in total

1.  Incidence and Outcome of Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and Detection of Herpes Simplex Virus in the Lower Respiratory Tract.

Authors:  Clemens Scherer; Enzo Lüsebrink; Leonhard Binzenhöfer; Thomas J Stocker; Danny Kupka; Hieu Phan Chung; Era Stambollxhiu; Ahmed Alemic; Antonia Kellnar; Simon Deseive; Konstantin Stark; Tobias Petzold; Christian Hagl; Jörg Hausleiter; Steffen Massberg; Martin Orban
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Treatment of acute cardiac tamponade: A retrospective analysis of classical intermittent versus continuous pericardial drainage.

Authors:  Christopher Stremmel; Clemens Scherer; Enzo Lüsebrink; Danny Kupka; Teresa Schmid; Thomas Stocker; Antonia Kellnar; Jan Kleeberger; Moritz F Sinner; Tobias Petzold; Julinda Mehilli; Daniel Braun; Mathias Orban; Jörg Hausleiter; Steffen Massberg; Martin Orban
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2021-02-05

3.  Predictive value of the APACHE II score in cardiogenic shock patients treated with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Johannes Mierke; Thomas Nowack; Tobias Loehn; Franziska Kluge; Frederike Poege; Uwe Speiser; Felix Woitek; Norman Mangner; Karim Ibrahim; Axel Linke; Christian Pfluecke
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2022-03-30

Review 4.  Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. Current Status and Unresolved Targets for Subsequent Research.

Authors:  Jaroslaw Zalewski; Karol Nowak; Patrycja Furczynska; Magdalena Zalewska
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a pooled IABP-SHOCK II and CULPRIT-SHOCK trial sub-analysis.

Authors:  Martin Orban; Jan Kleeberger; Holger Thiele; Taoufik Ouarrak; Anne Freund; Hans-Josef Feistritzer; Georg Fuernau; Tobias Geisler; Kurt Huber; Dariusz Dudek; Marko Noc; Gilles Montalescot; Alexander Neumer; Paul Haller; Peter Clemmensen; Uwe Zeymer; Steffen Desch; Steffen Massberg; Steffen Schneider; Jörg Hausleiter
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 5.460

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.