Abstract:Introduction Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices are increasingly used for the management of patients experiencing cardiogenic shock despite a paucity of randomized controlled data on their clinical efficacy. Complications associated with these devices are a common, but poorly quantified, occurrence that may negatively affect outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients receiving tMCS. Objective We sought to evaluate complication rates in patients with cardiogenic shock who receive tMCS and compare complication rates between different tMCS devices. Methods Consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock managed at a tertiary academic medical center from May 2015 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed (N=1,162). Our final study cohort comprised patients who developed cardiogenic shock and received tMCS after admission to our institution (N=187). Primary outcomes studied were complications using STS-INTERMACS definitions: neurologic complications (ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA]), major bleeding events (type 3 and 4), and hemolysis, as well as acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) and vascular compromise requiring vascular repair or amputation. Chi-squared tests were used to compare complication rates. Results Our study comprised 187 patients of whom 55 received VA-ECMO, 72 intra-aortic balloon pump, and 60 percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD - 90% Impella CP, 6.6% Impella 5.5, 3.3% Impella 2.5) as first tMCS. Patients receiving VA-ECMO had a higher proportion of SCAI stage E and higher lactate prior to the initiation of tMCS (Table- Panel A). Our analysis showed a vascular complication rate of 20% for VA-ECMO vs 6.9% for IABP vs 5% for pVAD, p=0.015; neurologic complication rate of 12.7% vs 8.3% vs 5%, p=0.34; hemolysis rate of 22.2% vs 2.8% vs 36.7%, p<0.001; AKI requiring RRT of 25.5% vs 9.7% vs 13.3%, p=0.045; and major bleeding event rate of 85.5% vs 34.7%% vs 53.3%, p<0.001 (Table- Panel B). Conclusions Overall complication rates increased from IABP to pVAD to VA-ECMO. VA-ECMO patients experienced more vascular complications, AKI requiring RRT, and major bleeding; pVAD patients had more hemolysis while the risk of stroke/TIA was comparable among the tMCS groups. Whether the observed differences are related to the specific device type and/or the different degrees of severity of shock warrants further investigation.

Hemodynamics with mechanical circulatory support devices using a cardiogenic shock model

Discussion of hemodynamic optimization strategies and the canonical understanding of hemodynamics during biventricular mechanical support in cardiogenic shock: does the flow balance make the difference?

Steady Flow Left Ventricle Unloading Is Superior to Pulsatile Pressure Augmentation Venting During Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support

Haemodynamic support with percutaneous devices in patients with cardiogenic shock: the current evidence of mechanical circulatory support

The impact of ECPELLA on haemodynamics and global oxygen delivery: a comprehensive simulation of biventricular failure

Hemodynamic analysis of left ventricular unloading with Impella versus IABP during VA-ECMO

Impact of right ventricular and pulmonary vascular characteristics on Impella hemodynamic support in biventricular heart failure: A simulation study

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: updates from recent studies

Complication Rates Of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support In Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Systemic Hemodynamics, Cardiac Mechanics, and Signaling Pathways Induced by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in a Cardiogenic Shock Model

Meta-Analysis Comparing Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With or Without Impella in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Advancement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Severe Cardiovascular Diseases

Clinical Application and Choice of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Children

Investigations of Differential Hypoxemia During Venoarterial Membrane Oxygenation with and Without Impella Support

Direct comparison of mechanical circulatory support devices in porcine model of acute myocardial infarction complicated by ventricular septal defect and cardiogenic shock

Impella RP in hemodynamically unstable patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Benefit of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation combined with Impella (ECpella) therapy in acute coronary syndrome with cardiogenic shock

The Use of Mechanical Circulatory Assist Devices for ACS Patients with Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk PCI

Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for acute myocardial infarction associated cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing early revascularization

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in acute cardiogenic shock: A subgroup-specific systematic review

Cardiac ECMO: changing role in times of Impella and ventricular assist devices?