The use of perioperative Impella 5.5 support in high-risk cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study

John Eisenga,Kyle McCullough,Ghadi Moubarak,J. Michael Dimaio,Timothy George

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-24-194

2024-10-01

Journal of Thoracic Disease

Abstract:Keywords: Impella; temporary mechanical support; adult cardiac; perioperative care

respiratory system

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature

Carlos Alberto Valdes,Ahmet Bilgili,Akshay Reddy,Omar Sharaf,Fabian Jimenez-Contreras,Griffin Stinson,Mustafa Ahmed,Juan Vilaro,Alex M Parker,Mohammad Az Al-Ani,Daniel Demos,Juan Aranda,Mark Bleiweis,Thomas M Beaver,Eric I Jeng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845241266527

Abstract:Objective: Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is a temporary mechanical circulatory support device used for patients in cardiogenic shock. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the device's clinical effectiveness, safety profile, patient outcomes, and relevant procedural considerations. Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the PubMed/MEDLINE database. The search query included articles available from October 6, 2022, through January 13, 2023. Our initial search identified 75 studies. All records were screened by 2 independent reviewers using the Covidence software for adherence to our inclusion criteria, and 8 retrospective cohort studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion. Results: Across the included studies, the sample size ranged from 4 to 275, with predominantly male cohorts. Indications for Impella support varied, and the duration of support ranged from 9.8 to 70 days. Overall, Impella support appeared to be associated with favorable survival rates and manageable complications in various patient populations. Complications associated with Impella use included bleeding, stroke, and device malfunctions. Two studies compared prolonged and Food and Drug Administration-approved Impella support, showing similar outcomes and adverse events. Conclusions: Impella 5.5 continues to be an attractive option for bridging patients to definitive therapy. Survival during and after Impella 5.5 was favorable for patients regardless of initial indication. However, device use was associated with several important complications, which calls for judicious use and a precontemplated exit strategy. Limitations of this literature review include biases inherent to the retrospective studies included, such as selection and publication bias.
Hemodynamic Support With the Impella 5.5 Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Device

James W Schurr,Adrian Pearson,Matthew S Delfiner,Alyson Brown,Mary Frances Quinn,Yoav Karpenshif,Juan Ortega-Legaspi,Aditya Parikh,Marisa Cevasco,Joyce W Wald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000002331

2024-10-15

Abstract:The Impella 5.5 is increasingly used as a bridge to recovery or heart replacement therapies despite lack of clinical trial evidence. We report real-world outcomes and hemodynamic effects of 150 consecutive patients from a single, high-volume center. Primary outcome was incidence of recovery, durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or heart transplant compared with incidence of death at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic trends and upgrade to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support. The composite endpoint occurred in 59.3% and death in 18.8% of patients (incidence rate ratio: 8.1 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 5.4-12.2], p < 0.001). Decreases in pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) (p = 0.026), estimated pulmonary effective arterial elastance (Ea) (p < 0.001), and vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) (p < 0.001) occurred during Impella 5.5 support. Pulmonary artery diastolic pressure correlated with estimated Ea (p < 0.001), suggesting improved right ventricle (RV) afterload with left ventricle (LV) unloading. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation upgrade occurred in 11.3% of patients who had higher baseline right atrial pressure (RAP) (16.0 [9.0-20.5] vs. 9.0 [7.0-12.0], p = 0.022), PADP (28.5 [25.0-31.0] vs. 23.0 [18.0-28.0], p = 0.011), and lower pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) (1.45 [0.82-3.45] vs. 2.5 [1.65-3.86], p = 0.029). Upgrade patients had higher repeated measures trends in RAP (p < 0.001) and PADP (p = 0.015). The Impella 5.5 improved hemodynamics and effectively bridged to recovery or heart replacement therapies. Co-existing RV dysfunction can be supported on Impella 5.5 with careful hemodynamic trend monitoring.
Impella support for cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: A single-center experience

Mariana Brandão,Daniel Caeiro,Gustavo Pires-Morais,João Gonçalves Almeida,Pedro Gonçalves Teixeira,Marisa Passos Silva,Marta Ponte,Adelaide Dias,Marco Oliveira,Alberto Rodrigues,Pedro Braga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repce.2021.11.003

Abstract:Introduction and objectives: The use of mechanical circulatory support is increasing in cases of cardiogenic shock (CS) and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). The Impella® is a percutaneous ventricular assist device that unloads the left ventricle by ejecting blood to the ascending aorta. We report our center's experience with the use of the Impella® device in these two clinical settings. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective study including all consecutive patients implanted with the Impella® between 2007 and 2019 for CS treatment or prophylactic support of HR-PCI. Data on clinical and safety endpoints were collected and analyzed. Results: Twenty-two patients were included: 12 were treated for CS and 10 underwent an HR-PCI procedure. In the CS-treated population, the main cause of CS was acute myocardial infarction (five patients); hemolysis was the most frequent device-related complication (63.7%). In-hospital, cumulative 30-day and one-year mortality were 58.3%, 66.6% and 83.3%, respectively. In the HR-PCI group, all patients had multivessel disease (mean baseline SYNTAX I score: 44.1±13.7). In-hospital, 30-day and one-year mortality were 10.0%, 10.0% and 20.0%, respectively. There were no device- or procedure-related deaths in either group. Conclusion: The short- and long-term results of Impella®-supported HR-PCI were comparable to those in the literature. In the CS group, in-hospital and short-term outcomes were poor, with high mortality and non-negligible complication rates.
Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single‐center 137 patient experience

Yeahwa Hong,Nishant Agrawal,Nicholas R. Hess,Luke A. Ziegler,McKenzie M. Sicke,Gavin W. Hickey,Raj Ramanan,Jeffrey A. Fowler,Danny Chu,Pyongsoo D. Yoon,Johannes O. Bonatti,David J. Kaczorowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14735

2024-02-24

Artificial Organs

Abstract:Background This study evaluated the outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 and identified risk factors for in‐hospital mortality. Methods Adults with CS who were supported with Impella 5.0 or 5.5 at a single institution were included. Patients were stratified into three groups according to their CS etiology: (1) acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (2) acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), and (3) postcardiotomy (PC). The primary outcome was survival, and secondary outcomes included adverse events during Impella support and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for in‐hospital mortality. Results One hundred and thirty‐seven patients with CS secondary to AMI (n = 47), ADHF (n = 86), and PC (n = 4) were included. The ADHF group had the highest survival rates at all time points. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was the most common complication during Impella support in all 3 groups. Increased rates of AKI and de novo renal replacement therapy were observed in the PC group, and the AMI group experienced a higher incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion. Multivariable analysis demonstrated diabetes mellitus, elevated pre‐insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre‐insertion serum creatinine were independent predictors of in‐hospital mortality, but the etiology of CS did not impact mortality. Conclusions This study demonstrates that Impella 5.0 and 5.5 provide effective mechanical support for patients with CS with favorable outcomes, with nearly two‐thirds of patients alive at 180 days. Diabetes, elevated pre‐insertion serum lactate, and elevated pre‐insertion serum creatinine are strong risk factors for in‐hospital mortality.

engineering, biomedical,transplantation
A Contemporary Report Of Clinical Outcomes Associated With Impella 5.5 In Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Sana Riaz,Ippokratis Konstantinidis,Maciej Tysarowski,Jason Gluck,Ayyaz Ali,Abhishek Jaiswal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.287

IF: 6.592

2024-01-01

Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract:Introduction Implantation of the Impella 5.5, a temporary ventricular assist device (VAD), can deliver flow up to 5.5 L/min, which can reverse cardiogenic shock and end-organ damage and aid bridge to recovery, transplant, or durable VAD. In addition, a transaxillary implantation promotes patient mobility and rehabilitation while awaiting final destination therapy. Hypothesis We sought to assess survival and complications in patients who underwent Impella 5.5 support. Methods A retrospective of consecutive adults who underwent implantation of the Impella 5.5 at our center. Results Fifteen consecutive patients underwent implantation from July 2021 through March 2023; mean age 58 years (SD±12), 80% were men, 53% were white, and decompensated chronic heart failure was the most common indication (73%). The mean pre-implantation cardiac output and cardiac index were 4 LPM (SD±1.2) and 1.9 LPM/m2 (SD±0.5), respectively. Of the 15 patients, 53% and 20% of patients were transitioned from intra-aortic balloon pump and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, respectively. The right axillary artery graft (80%) was the most common implantation site, followed by central cannulation (20%). The median duration of support was 19 days (IQR 13,25), 53% of patients were on support for >2 weeks, and the longest duration of support was 60 days. Post-implantation, 73% of patients required inotropic support with at least one agent. There was an improvement in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and liver function tests (LFTs) in 53% and 40% of patients, respectively. The mean duration for these improvements was within two weeks [GFR 9 days (SD±9), and LFTs 14 days (SD±7)]. There was no brachial plexus injury, graft infection, valve injury, or stroke. There was no incidence of pump failure or pump thrombosis. The most common complication was hemolysis (serum LDH > 500 U/L) combined with the clinical presentation (27%), followed by insertion site hematoma (20%), requiring blood transfusions in 40% of patients. Acute kidney injury, an increase in serum creatinine ≥ 0.3 mg/dL, was found in 7%, and none developed an acute liver injury. Survival to device explant was 73%. Of the survivors, 40% underwent a heart transplant, 20% underwent durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, and 13% recovered. Death occurred in 27% due to multiorgan dysfunction (2), withdrawal of care (1), and both (1). Conclusions We report a favorable clinical outcome with Impella 5.5 at our center, with around 75% survival and a bridge to destination beyond the suggested 14-day support. Complications were limited to insertion site hematoma without any permanent injury.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Extending the window in clinical decision making: the role for Impella 5.5 in cardiogenic shock

A Desai,S Sharma,C Luce,R Goswami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.1121

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Background Acute decompensated heart failure (HF) refractory to medical management deteriorates quickly to cardiogenic shock, ultimately requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS). These devices aim to provide circulatory support as a bridge to advanced therapies. We report patient outcomes with the latest minimally invasive temporary MCS device: Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist. Methods All patients who underwent Impella 5.5 implantation between January 2020 and December 2023 were analyzed. Duration of Impella support and peri-implant parameters were collected from electronic medical records. ANOVA was performed and utilized a p-value of <0.05 as significant for statistical analysis. Results During our review period, a total of 99 patients were supported with Impella 5.5 in the setting of cardiogenic shock. 92 were bridged to heart transplant (BTT), of which 17 also received combined kidney transplantation. Two underwent durable VAD implantation (BTVAD), and 3 had native heart recovery (BTR) and explant. Two patients died, yielding a survival rate of 98%. For BTT group, the median age was 60 years (52-65) at implant and a median BMI of 27 kg/m2 (24-31) with a mean support duration of 29 days (SD ±24). Baseline GFR was 49 mL/min/1.73m2 (35-65). In the BTVAD group, the median BMI was 43 kg/m2 (39-46) with an average duration of support of 22 days (SD ±8) with a GFR of 55 mL/min/1.73m2 (38-73). The BTR group had a median BMI of 29 kg/m2 (27-30) with an average duration of support of 15 days (SD ±7) and a lower baseline GFR of 36 mL/min/1.73m2 (26 – 37) compared to BTT or BTVAD. The two patients that died were supported for an average of 42 days (SD ±9.2) and expired due to non-candidacy in the setting of newly detected prostate cancer in one patient and multi-organ failure in another. All BTVAD and BTT patients did not have a stroke or major vascular complications before terminal therapy. Conclusion Our center highlights the role of early Impella 5.5 placement in the stabilization of patients in cardiogenic shock, thereby providing both patients and providers time for decision-making while optimizing end-organ perfusion beyond the accepted duration of 14 days.Impella Data - Entire CohortImpella Data - Stratified by Outcome

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Impella Versus Non-Impella for Nonemergent High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Pavan Reddy,Ilan Merdler,Cheng Zhang,Matteo Cellamare,Itsik Ben-Dor,Nelson L Bernardo,Hayder D Hashim,Lowell F Satler,Toby Rogers,Ron Waksman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.05.038

2024-08-15

Abstract:The benefit of mechanical circulatory support with Impella (Abiomed, Inc., Danvers, Massachusetts) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is uncertain. PROTECT III registry data showed improved outcomes with Impella compared with historical data (PROTECT II) but lack a direct comparison with the HR-PCI cohort without Impella support. We retrospectively identified patients meeting the PROTECT III inclusion criteria for HR-PCI and compared this group (non-Impella cohort [NonIMP]) with the outcomes data from the PROTECT III registry (Impella cohort). Baseline differences were balanced using inverse propensity weighting. The coprimary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in-hospital and at 90 days. A total of 283 patients at great risk did not receive Impella support; 200 patients had 90-day event ascertainment and were included in the inverse propensity weighting analysis and compared with 504 patients in the Impella cohort group. After calibration, few residual differences remained between groups. The primary outcome was not different in-hospital (3.0% vs 4.8%, p = 0.403) but less in NonIMP at 90 days (7.5% vs 13.8%, p = 0.033). Periprocedural vascular complications, bleeding, and transfusion rate did not differ between groups; however, acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in the NonIMP group (10.5% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023). In conclusion, under identical HR-PCI inclusion criteria for Impella use in PROTECT III, an institutional non-Impella-supported HR-PCI cohort showed similar MACE in-hospital but fewer MACE at 90 days, whereas there was no signal for periprocedural harm with Impella use. These results do not support routine usage of Impella for patients with HR-PCI.
Clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients supported with high-capacity Impella axial flow pumps: A report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group

Justin Fried,Maryjane Farr,Manreet Kanwar,Nir Uriel,Jaime Hernandez-Montfort,Vanessa Blumer,Song Li,Shashank S Sinha,A Reshad Garan,Borui Li,Shelley Hall,Gavin W Hickey,Claudius Mahr,Sandeep Nathan,Andrew Schwartzman,Ju Kim,Van-Khue Ton,Oleg A Vishnevsky,Esther Vorovich,Jacob Abraham,Elric Zweck,Maya Guglin,Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula,Rachna Kataria,Karol D Walec,Peter Zazzali,Qiuyue Kong,Paavani Sangal,Daniel Burkhoff,Navin K Kapur

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2024.05.015

Abstract:Background: The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 pumps (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are large-bore transvalvular micro-axial assist devices used in cardiogenic shock (CS) for patients requiring high-capacity flow. Despite their increasing use, real-world data regarding indications, rates of utilization and clinical outcomes with this therapy are limited. The objective of our study was to examine clinical profiles and outcomes of patients in a contemporary, real-world CS registry of patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 alone or in combination with other temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. Methods: The CS Working Group (CSWG) Registry includes patients from 34 US hospitals. For this analysis, data from patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 between 2020-2023 were analyzed. Use of Impella 5.0/5.5 with or without additional tMCS therapies, duration of support, adverse events and outcomes at hospital discharge were studied. Adverse events including stroke, limb ischemia, bleeding and hemolysis were not standardized by the registry but reported per individual CSWG Primary Investigator discretion. For those who survived, rates of native heart recovery (NHR) or heart replacement therapy (HRT) including heart transplant (HT), or durable ventricular assist device (VAD) were recorded. We also assessed outcomes based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS). Results: Among 6,205 patients, 754 received an Impella 5.0/5.5 (12.1%), including 210 MI-CS (27.8%) and 484 HF-CS (64.1%) patients. Impella 5.0/5.5 was used as the sole tMCS device in 32% of patients, while 68% of patients received a combination of tMCS devices. Impella cannulation sites were available for 524/754 (69.4%) of patients, with 93.5% axillary configuration. Survival to hospital discharge for those supported with an Impella 5.0/5.5 was 67%, with 20.4% NHR and 45.5% HRT. Compared to HF-CS, patients with MI-CS supported on Impella 5.0/5.5 had higher in-hospital mortality (45.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001) and were less likely to receive HRT (22.4% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001. For patients receiving a combination of tMCS during hospitalization, this was associated with higher rates of limb ischemia (9% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), bleeding (52% vs 33%, p < 0.01), and mortality (38% vs 25%; p < 0.001) compared to Impella 5.0/5.5 alone. Among Impella 5.0/5.5 recipients, the median duration of pump support was 12.9 days (IQR: 6.8-22.9) and longer in patients bridged to HRT (14 days; IQR: 7.7-28.4). Conclusions: In this multi-center cohort of patients with CS, use of Impella 5.0/5.5 was associated with an overall survival of 67.1% and high rates of HRT. Lower adverse event rates were observed when Impella 5.0/5.5 was the sole support device used. Further study is required to determine whether a strategy of early Impella 5.0/5.5 use for CS improves survival. Condensed abstract: High capacity Impella heart pumps are capable of provide up to 5.5 liter/min of flow while upper body surgical placement allows for ambulation. Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction or heart failure requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support may benefit from upfront use of Impella 5.5 to improve overall survival, including native heart recovery or successful bridge to durable left ventricular assist device surgery or heart transplantation.
Microaxial Flow Pumps for Cardiogenic Shock: Effects on Hemodynamics, Hemolysis, and End‐Organ Recovery

Lauren E. Parker,Lillian Kang,Carmelo A. Milano,Alejandro A. Lobo,Julie W. Doberne,Muath Bishawi,Christopher. W. Jensen,Chetan B. Patel,Adam D. DeVore,Stuart D. Russell,Jason N. Katz,Jacob N. Schroder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/3584383

IF: 1.778

2024-06-07

Journal of Cardiac Surgery

Abstract:Background. The Impella 5.5 offers a less invasive transvalvular approach to left ventricular mechanical support. End‐organ recovery and hemolysis have been well‐studied with durable left ventricular assist devices but effects of Impella 5.5 on these parameters are less well described. Methods. All Impella 5.5 recipients between August 2020 and June 2023 were reviewed from a single institution. Hemodynamics and laboratory values were compared between preimplant and prior to device removal. Hemolysis was defined as postoperative lactate dehydrogenase >1000 IU/L with concurrent plasma‐free hemoglobin >50 mg/dL. Paired Wilcoxon tests compared the median of differences between preimplant and pre‐explant values. Results. We studied 127 consecutive implants of the Impella 5.5. Thirty‐one patients had concomitant VA‐ECMO, and one received Impella 5.5 after durable LVAD explant; these cases were excluded. Our final cohort included 95 patients, with an average age of 55.29 ± 14.5 years. Median implant duration was 11 days (IQR:6–16 days). To avoid confounding hemodynamic factors, we restricted hemodynamic analysis to the 37 patients who received isolated Impella 5.5, excluding those with prior IABP, Impella CP, acute MI, or prior cardiac surgery. These patients experienced improvements from baseline in pulmonary vascular resistance (−77.03 dynes/sec/cm−5, p < 0.01) and wedge pressure (−6.5 mmHg, p < 0.01). Furthermore, cardiac index improved from baseline (+1.3, p < 0.01). In the total cohort (n = 95), pre‐explant creatinine (−0.2 mg/dL, p < 0.01) and ALT (−9.0 mg/dL, p < 0.01) decreased relative to values before the implant. Twenty‐three (24%) met criteria for hemolysis; however, none underwent device removal for clinically significant hemolysis. Takeback was required in 25 patients, 22 of which were for axillary hematoma. Conclusions. Impella 5.5 support acutely improved markers of end‐organ function and hemodynamics, including PVR.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Structured Weaning From the Impella Left Ventricular Micro-Axial Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Experience From a Non-Cardiac Surgical Centre

Ryan J Slack,Forbes McGain,Nicholas Cox,Craig French,Victoria Cheng,Dion Stub,Brian Zakhem,Fabien Dade,Jason E Bloom,William Chan,Yang Yang,Ryan J. Slack,Jason E. Bloom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2023.12.007

2024-02-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) temporary percutaneous left ventricular assist device is increasingly used as mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMICS) or those undergoing high-risk protected percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The optimal weaning regimen remains to be defined.METHOD: We implemented a structured weaning protocol in a series of 10 consecutive patients receiving Impella support for protected PCI or AMICS treated with PCI in a high volume non-cardiac surgery centre. Weaning after revascularisation was titrated to native heart recovery using both haemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters.RESULTS: Ten patients (eight male, two female; aged 43-70 years) received Impella support for AMICS (80%) or protected PCI (20%). Cardiogenic shock was of Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions grade C-E of severity in 80%, and median left ventricular end-diastolic pressure was 31 mmHg. Protocol implementation allowed successful weaning in eight of 10 patients with a median support time of 29 hours (range, 4-48 hours). Explantation was associated with an increase in heart rate (81 vs 88 bpm; p=0.005), but no significant change in Cardiac Index (2.9 vs 2.9 L/min/m<sup>2</sup>), mean arterial pressure (79 vs 82 mmHg), vasopressor requirement (10% vs 10%), or serum lactate (1.0 vs 1.0). Median durations of intensive care and hospital stay were 3 and 6 days, respectively. At 30 days, the mortality rate was 20%, with median left ventricular ejection fraction of 40%.CONCLUSIONS: A structured and dynamic weaning protocol for patients with AMICS and protected PCI supported by the Impella device is feasible in a non-cardiac surgery centre. Larger studies are needed to assess generalisability of such a weaning protocol.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Patient Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes With Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jennie H Kwon,Dana Bentley,Marisa Cevasco,Vanessa Blumer,Manreet K Kanwar,Scott C Silvestry,Mani A Daneshmand,Jacob Abraham,Khaled Shorbaji,Arman Kilic,Jennie H. Kwon,Manreet K. Kanwar,Scott C. Silvestry,Mani A. Daneshmand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mat.0000000000002169

2024-02-22

ASAIO Journal

Abstract:Data regarding outcomes with Impella 5.5 are limited. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize patient and treatment characteristics and early clinical outcomes among patients supported by Impella 5.5. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from September 2019 to March 2023. Studies reporting outcomes in greater than or equal to 5 patients were included for review. Patient characteristics, treatment characteristics, and early clinical outcomes were extracted. Outcomes included adverse events, survival to hospital discharge, and 30 day survival. Random-effect models were used to estimate pooled effects for survival outcomes. Assessment for bias was performed using funnel plots and Egger’s tests. Fifteen studies were included for qualitative review, representing 707 patients. Mean duration of support was 9.9 ± 8.2 days. On meta-analysis of 13 studies reporting survival outcomes, survival to hospital discharge was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58–78%), and 30 day survival was 65% (95% CI, 56–74%) among patients with Impella devices predominantly supported by Impella 5.5 (>60%). There was significant study heterogeneity for these outcomes. Among 294 patients with Impella 5.5 only, survival to discharge was 78% (95% CI, 72–82%) with no significant study heterogeneity. This data present early benchmarks for outcomes with Impella 5.5 as clinical experience with these devices accrues.

engineering, biomedical,transplantation
Trajectories following Impella 5.5 support are associated with initial presentation acuity

Jean‐Luc A. Maigrot,Randall C. Starling,Edward G. Soltesz,Nicholas G. Smedira,Michael Z. Y. Tong,Shinya Unai,Pavan Bhat,David Moros,Eugene H. Blackstone,Aaron J. Weiss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14867

2024-10-20

Artificial Organs

Abstract:In patients with the highest presentation acuity, assessment of risks/benefits and candidacy for advanced therapies as an exit strategy are critical as some may be unsalvageable despite Impella 5.5 support. In those with less acute presentations or high risk for cardiogenic shock, appropriately timed Impella insertion may facilitate favorable outcomes. Background Impella 5.5 is a temporary left ventricular assist device utilized to support patients with cardiogenic shock and those undergoing high‐risk cardiac interventions. Methods From October 2019 to January 2023, 226 patients received Impella 5.5 support at Cleveland Clinic main campus. Patients were stratified by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stages. Immediate post‐Impella 5.5 trajectories were compared across groups. Trajectories were defined as mortality on Impella 5.5, transition to advanced heart failure therapies (durable left ventricular assist device/heart transplantation), or survival to Impella 5.5 removal without advanced therapies. Results Overall, 148 (65%) patients with cardiogenic shock and 78 (35%) undergoing high‐risk cardiac interventions received Impella 5.5 support. SCAI stage was A in 63 (28%), B in 10 (4.4%), C in 29 (13%), D in 104 (46%), and E in 20 (8.8%). Mortality on Impella 5.5 was highest in SCAI stage E (A: 3.2%, B: 10%, C: 14%, D: 27%, E: 35%; p

engineering, biomedical,transplantation
Impella 5.5 as a bridge-to-surgery in acute ischemic mitral regurgitation post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report

Ioana Dumitru,Askin Uysal,Joel Shoemaker,Maria Sevillano,Leeandra Schnell,Samip Vasaiwala,Syed Osman Ali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-03019-9

2024-11-08

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

Abstract:Acute ischemic mitral regurgitation (AIMR) is a significant complication of acute coronary syndrome that leads to severe and immediate hemodynamic deterioration and cardiogenic shock. Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly used to support patients with AIMR as a bridge to surgery, though they may be insufficient in some cases.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Impella 5.5 Bridge to Heart Transplant: An Institutional Series and a Closer Look at Device Removal Technique

Jessica S. Clothier,Serge Kobsa,Jonathan Praeger,Markian Bojko,Anahat Dhillon,Ajay Vaidya,Raymond Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mat.0000000000002193

2024-03-14

ASAIO Journal

Abstract:Limited donor organ availability often necessitates mechanical circulatory support, and recently the Impella 5.5, as a bridge to heart transplant. Of 175 Impella 5.5-supported patients at our institution, 45 underwent transplantation in the largest series to date, for whom we analyzed outcomes. Two methods of complete device explant were evaluated: central Impella transection and removal via axillary graft. Median Impella days were 25 (16–41); median waitlist days were 21 (9–37). Eighty-nine percent (40/45) of patients had device placement via right axillary artery. Seventy-six percent (34/45) underwent central transection for device removal. Four patients (8.9%) required short-term venoarterial extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (VA ECMO) postoperatively for primary graft dysfunction (PGD). Two patients (4.4%) suffered postoperative stroke. Five patients (11.1%) required new RRT postoperatively. One patient (2.2%) returned to the operating room (OR) for axillary graft bleeding. A higher chance of procedural complications was found with the axillary removal technique ( p = 0.014). Median intensive care unit (ICU) days, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative days to discharge were 46 (35–63), 59 (49–80), and 18 (15–24), respectively. Ninety-eight percent (44/45) survived to discharge. Thirty-day survival was 95.6% (43/45), with 1 year survival at 90.3% (28/31). Eighty-eight percent (37/42) remain without rejection. In our institutional experience, Impella 5.5 is a safe and reliable bridge to transplant.

engineering, biomedical,transplantation
Case Report: Abdominal surgery with the support of Impella (SURGELLA), a new frontier to be explored

Stefano Guarracini,Pierluigi Di Sebastiano,Fabio Francesco Di Mola,Raffaella Di Renzo,Lorenzo Mazzocchetti,Antonio M. Calafiore,Michele Di Mauro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1301538

IF: 3.6

2024-04-04

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:A 74-year-old man with advanced heart failure was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and he underwent surgery. To maintain stable hemodynamics, the Impella CP device was used. The patient was weaned from the device shortly after surgery, and he had an uneventful postoperative course. This case may pave the way for non-procrastinating surgery in patients with poorly stable hemodynamics.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Impella 5.5 Support for Delayed Surgical Ventricular Septal Defect Repair-A Paradigm Shift?

Kaveh Eghbalzadeh,Clara Großmann,Ihor Krasivskyi,Ilija Djordjevic,Elmar W Kuhn,Christian Origel Romero,Farhad Bakhtiary,Navid Mader,Antje Christin Deppe,Thorsten C W Wahlers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1788982

2024-08-12

Abstract:Background: Ventricular septal defects (VSDs) remain a rare but life-threatening complication of myocardial infarction. Although the incidence has decreased due to better treatment options, the mortality rate remains high. The timing of VSD repair remains critical to outcome. The use of mechanical circulatory support is rarely described in the literature, although it may help to delay repair to allow tissue stabilization. While Impella is currently considered contraindicated due to the potential worsening of the right-to-left shunt and possible systemic embolization of necrotic debris, there is no comprehensive evidence for this. Therefore, we aimed to analyze whether the use of Impella 5.5 as a first choice for patients undergoing VSD repair should be considered for discussion. Methods: This retrospective study analyses four consecutive patients who underwent delayed ventricular septal repair after prior implantation of Impella 5.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, Massachusetts, United States). Results: A total of 75% of patients (n = 3) presented with acute right heart failure prior to implantation with a mean systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 64 ± 3.0 mmHg. Implantation was performed under local anesthesia in three cases. The mean time to surgery was 9.8 ± 3.1 days. All patients remained on the Impella 5.5 device postoperatively. Weaning from Impella 5.5 was successful in 75% (n = 3). The mean length of stay in the intensive care unit was 22.3 ± 7.5 days. Conclusion: Preoperative implantation of the Impella 5.5 device is a safe and feasible option for patients undergoing VSD repair. Outcomes may be improved by performing Impella implantation under local anesthesia and continuing Impella support after VSD repair. However, it is important to note that these patients represent a high-risk cohort and the mortality rate remains high.
Midterm outcomes of patients with native heart recovery after Impella 5+ for cardiogenic shock

Marta Bandini,Nicoletta D'Ettore,Walter Iannotti,Tommaso Capobianco,Giulia Maj,Astrid Cardinale,Alina Gallo,Andrea Audo,Federico Pappalardo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3544

2024-12-03

European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract:Summary of key study outcomes. Aims Left ventricular unloading by percutaneous microaxial flow‐pump devices has been shown to improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The objective of the study is to examine whether Impella 5.0/5.5 (5+) support is effective in facilitating heart recovery, overall survival, and quality of life. Methods and results This single‐centre retrospective study examined midterm (180 days) outcomes of patients with CS supported by Impella 5+ who achieved heart recovery. The primary endpoint was survival at 180 days and freedom from implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD), heart transplant/left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or readmission for heart failure. Functional status was assessed with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Between June 2022 and April 2024, 20 patients with CS (64 ± 8.9 years, 80% male) received Impella 5+ and discharged with heart recovery. Before Impella placement, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 19.2 ± 5.2%, 7 (35%) patients were SCAI stage C, 9 (45%) SCAI stage D, and 4 (20%) SCAI stage E, and the mean vasoactive‐inotropic score was 23.2 ± 38.0. The average duration of Impella support was 10.5 ± 8 days. At 180 days, 19 (95%) patients were alive, no patient received a heart transplant/LVAD, 40% were implanted with an ICD and there were two admissions for heart failure. The mean LVEF was 33.5 ± 10.7%, 5 (26.3%) patients were NYHA class I, 9 (47.4%) were NYHA class II, and 5 (26.3%) were NYHA class III. One patient died from a non‐cardiac cause. Conclusion Impella 5+ represents a promising treatment strategy for CS, providing high rates of sustained native heart recovery. A comprehensive platform of mechanical and pharmacological unloading is key.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock—a critical appraisal of current data

Bernhard Wernly,Clemens Seelmaier,David Leistner,Barbara E. Stähli,Ingrid Pretsch,Michael Lichtenauer,Christian Jung,Uta C. Hoppe,Ulf Landmesser,Holger Thiele,Alexander Lauten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-019-01458-2

IF: 6.138

2019-03-21

Clinical Research in Cardiology

Abstract:AimsPatients suffering from cardiogenic shock (CS) have a high mortality and morbidity. The Impella percutaneous left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) decreases LV preload, increases cardiac output, and improves coronary blood flow. We aimed to review and meta-analyze available data comparing Impella versus intra-aortic pump (IABP) counterpulsation or medical treatment in CS due to acute myocardial infarction or post-cardiac arrest.Methods and resultsStudy-level data were analyzed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Risk rates were calculated and obtained using a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Four studies were found suitable for the final analysis, including 588 patients. Primary endpoint was short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality).In a meta-analysis of four studies comparing Impella versus control, Impella was not associated with improved short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality; RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.57–1.24; p = 0.38; I2 55%). Stroke risk was not increased (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.36–2.81; p = 1.00; I22 0%), but risk for major bleeding (RR 3.11 95% CI 1.50–6.44; p = 0.002; I2 0%) and peripheral ischemia complications (RR 2.58; 95% CI 1.24–5.34; p = 0.01; I2 0%) were increased in the Impella group.ConclusionIn patients suffering from severe CS due to AMI, the use of Impella is not associated with improved short-time survival but with higher complications rates compared to IABP and medical treatment. Better patient selection avoiding Impella implantation in futile situations or in possible lower risk CS might be necessary to elucidate possible advantages of Impella in future studies.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Impella for the management of ventricular septal defect complicating acute myocardial infarction: insights from an European multicenter retrospective analysis. The VSD-IMPELLA study

C Delmas,H Barbosa,C H David,P G Piriou,J Leick,M Pavlov,G Leurent,P Lanmuller,N Mangner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuad036.098

2023-05-01

Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Backgroud Ventricular septal defect (VSD), is a rare but fatal complication of myocardial infarction (MI) associated with high early mortality. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (t-MCS) of any type can be used to stabilize the patient as a bridge to surgical or percutaneous closure, or to heart transplantation or long-term ventricular assist device, but with a low level of evidence. The Impella® device is a trans-valvular aortic axial pump inserted surgically or percutaneously which pumps blood directly from the left ventricle into above the aortic valve. Its hemodynamic effects seem interesting, explaining its use by certain expert centers in this context, but the data in this indication are rare in the literature. Method It was an European retrospective multicentre registry of patients hospitalized for ischemic VSD managed with an Impella® (2.5, CP or 5.0) over the past 10 years (2010 to 2021). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. The secondary endpoints were the monitoring of clinical, hemodynamic and biological data at 24 hours, the medications and organ supports used during hospitalization, intra-hospital complications and mortality at 6 months and 1 year. Results On 20 centers contacted, 17 responded (85%). A total of 28 patients managed with an Impella® device for an ischemic VSD in 7 European center were included (41% of respondents). All patients included were in cardiogenic shock (100%, n=28) with multiple organ failure (SAPSII 41 [IQR 53-27], Euroscore 57 [IQR 75-23] and arterial lactate 6 +/-5 mmol). The majority of patients required inotropic and vasopressor support (dobutamine 55% and norepinephrine 96%). In-hospital and 1-year mortalities were 75%. Surgical closure of the VSD was performed in 36% of patients, percutaneous closure in 21% and medical treatment alone for 43, with in-hospital mortality of 30, 92 and 100% respectively. Hospital mortality also seemed to be associated with the type of t-MCS used (71% for Impella alone, 67% for Impella® with IABP combination and 78% for Impella® with ECLS combination). Survivors were more likely to have benefited from CABG revascularization (p < 0.011). Conclusion Despite the potential hemodynamic advantages, the use of Impella® in patients with ischemic VSD is associated with high mortality which may be partly related to its exclusive use in the most severe cardiogenic shock patients, to associated therapies in particular the type of closure of the VSD, or the complications of the device itself.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients requiring prolonged mechanical circulatory support after high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

Sugi Min,Mir Babar Basir,Alejandro Lemor,Zhipeng Zhou,Arsalan Abu-Much,Björn Redfors,Julia B Thompson,Alexander G Truesdell,Aditya S Bharadwaj,Yanru Li,Amir Kaki,Brigitta C Brott,David H Wohns,Perwaiz M Meraj,Ramesh Daggubati,Cindy L Grines,William W O'Neill,Jeffrey W Moses

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00512

2024-01-15

EuroIntervention

Abstract:Background: There are limited data on the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who require prolonged mechanical circulatory support (MCS) after Impella-supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). Aims: The aim of this study is to describe the contemporary clinical characteristics, outcomes, and predictors associated with prolonged MCS support after assisted HR-PCI. Methods: Patients enrolled in the prospective, multicentre, clinical endpoint-adjudicated PROTECT III study who had undergone HR-PCI using Impella were evaluated. Patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes for those who received prolonged MCS beyond the duration of their index procedure were compared to those in whom MCS was successfully weaned and explanted at the conclusion of the index PCI. Results: Among 1,155 patients who underwent HR-PCI with Impella between 2017 and 2020 and had sufficient data to confirm the duration of Impella support, 16.5% received prolonged MCS (mean duration 25.2±31.1 hours compared with 1.8±5.8 hours for those who only received intraprocedural MCS). Patients receiving prolonged support presented with more urgent indications (e.g., acute coronary syndromes [ACS], lower ejection fraction [EF], elevated baseline heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure). Use of the Impella CP, intraprocedural complications, periprocedural complications and in-hospital mortality were all more common amongst the prolonged MCS group. Prolonged MCS was associated with increased rates of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality at 90-day follow-up. Conclusions: Patients receiving prolonged MCS after Impella-supported HR-PCI presented with more ACS, reduced EF and less favourable haemodynamics. Additionally, they were more likely to experience intraprocedural and periprocedural complications as well as increased in-hospital and post-discharge mortality.

The use of perioperative Impella 5.5 support in high-risk cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature

Hemodynamic Support With the Impella 5.5 Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Device

Impella support for cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: A single-center experience

Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single‐center 137 patient experience

A Contemporary Report Of Clinical Outcomes Associated With Impella 5.5 In Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Extending the window in clinical decision making: the role for Impella 5.5 in cardiogenic shock

Impella Versus Non-Impella for Nonemergent High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients supported with high-capacity Impella axial flow pumps: A report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group

Microaxial Flow Pumps for Cardiogenic Shock: Effects on Hemodynamics, Hemolysis, and End‐Organ Recovery

Structured Weaning From the Impella Left Ventricular Micro-Axial Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock and Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Experience From a Non-Cardiac Surgical Centre

Patient Characteristics and Early Clinical Outcomes With Impella 5.5: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Trajectories following Impella 5.5 support are associated with initial presentation acuity

Impella 5.5 as a bridge-to-surgery in acute ischemic mitral regurgitation post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report

Impella 5.5 Bridge to Heart Transplant: An Institutional Series and a Closer Look at Device Removal Technique

Case Report: Abdominal surgery with the support of Impella (SURGELLA), a new frontier to be explored

Impella 5.5 Support for Delayed Surgical Ventricular Septal Defect Repair-A Paradigm Shift?

Midterm outcomes of patients with native heart recovery after Impella 5+ for cardiogenic shock

Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock—a critical appraisal of current data

Impella for the management of ventricular septal defect complicating acute myocardial infarction: insights from an European multicenter retrospective analysis. The VSD-IMPELLA study

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients requiring prolonged mechanical circulatory support after high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention