Percutaneous Mechanical Ventricular Support in Acute Cardiac Care: A UK Quaternary Centre Experience Using 2.5L, 3.8L and 5.0L Impella Catheters

Cardiology and Therapy - Tập 4 - Trang 47-58 - 2014
Vinod Venugopal1, Jon Spiro1, Alex Zaphiriou1, Sohail Khan1, Jonathan N. Townend1, Peter F. Ludman1, Sagar N. Doshi1
1Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK

Tóm tắt

The Impella is a percutaneous ventricular assist device. The majority of published data describes the 2.5L and 5.0L devices, and little data is available for the newer 3.8L device. We examined the indications and outcomes from our single-centre “real-world” registry at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK, using all three pump sizes. Records from all patients who underwent attempted Impella-assisted procedures at our centre were examined retrospectively. Impella implantation was attempted in 49 patients (mean age 72 ± 13 years; 80% male) and was successful in 48 (98%). 45 patients underwent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one patient underwent balloon aortic valvuloplasty and 3 patients had Impella as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. The 2.5L and 3.8L devices were used in 36 (75%) and 11 (23%) patients, respectively, while one patient (2%) had the 5L device. Vascular complications occurred in only one patient (2%) and stroke and peri-procedural myocardial infarction occurred in one patient (2%), while in-hospital mortality was 20% (10/49). In this large real-world registry, we have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of the Impella device for a wide range of indications. This includes the first series of the 3.8L device which provides superior support with no increase in vascular complications.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Maini B, Naidu SS, Mulukutla S, et al. Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80(5):717–25.

Sjauw KD, Engstrom AE, Henriques JP. Percutaneous mechanical cardiac assist in myocardial infarction. Where are we now, where are we going? Acute Card Care. 2007;9(4):222–30.

Keelan PC, Johnston JM, Koru-Sengul T, et al. Comparison of in-hospital and one-year outcomes in patients with left ventricular ejection fractions ≤40%, 41–49%, and ≥50% having percutaneous coronary revascularization. Am J Cardiol. 2003;91(10):1168–72.

Wallace TW, Berger JS, Wang A, Velazquez EJ, Brown DL. Impact of left ventricular dysfunction on hospital mortality among patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(3):355–60.

Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M, BCIS-1 Investigators, et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;304(8):867–74.

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9905):1638–45.

Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O’Neill WW; TandemHeart Investigators Group. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 2006;152(3):469.e1–8.

Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, et al. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(13):1276–83.

Sauren LD, Accord RE, Hamzeh K, et al. Combined Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump support to improve both ventricular unloading and coronary blood flow for myocardial recovery: an experimental study. Artif Organs. 2007;31(11):839–42.

Reesink KD, Dekker AL, Van Ommen V, et al. Miniature intracardiac assist device provides more effective cardiac unloading and circulatory support during severe left heart failure than intraaortic balloon pumping. Chest. 2004;126(3):896–902.

Cubeddu RJ, Lago R, Horvath SA, Vignola PA, O’Neill W, Palacios IF. Use of the Impella 2.5 system alone, after and in combination with an intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock: case description and review of the literature. EuroIntervention. 2012;7(12):1453–60.

Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JP, et al. Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;70(4):532–7.

Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JP, et al. Effects of mechanical left ventricular unloading by Impella on left ventricular dynamics in high-risk and primary percutaneous coronary intervention patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75(2):187–94.

Valgimigli M, Steendijk P, Sianos G, Onderwater E, Serruys PW. Left ventricular unloading and concomitant total cardiac output increase by the use of percutaneous Impella Recover LP 2.5 assist device during high-risk coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65(2):263–7.

Sjauw KD, Konorza T, Erbel R, et al. Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device the Europella registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(25):2430–4.

O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012;126(14):1717–27.

Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 2009;30(17):2102–8.

Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(19):1584–8.

Lauten A, Engstrom AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(1):23–30.

Myers TJ. Temporary ventricular assist devices in the intensive care unit as a bridge to decision. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2012;23(1):55–68.

Chandola R, Cusimano R, Osten M, Horlick E. Use of Impella 5L for acute allograft rejection postcardiac transplant. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;60(4):302–4.

Rajagopal V, Steahr G, Wilmer CI, Raval NY. A novel percutaneous mechanical biventricular bridge to recovery in severe cardiac allograft rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29(1):93–5.

Patanè F, Zingarelli E, Sansone F, Rinaldi M. Acute ventricular septal defect treated with an Impella recovery as a ‘bridge therapy’ to heart transplantation. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg. 2007;6(6):818–9.

Hollander SA, Reinhartz O, Chin C, et al. Use of the Impella 5.0 as a bridge from ECMO to implantation of the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device in a pediatric patient. Pediatr Transplant. 2012;16(2):205–6.

Perera D, Stables R, Clayton T, BCIS-1 Investigators, et al. Long-term mortality data from the balloon pump-assisted coronary intervention study (BCIS-1): a randomized, controlled trial of elective balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2013;127(2):207–12.

Sassard T, Scalabre A, Bonnefoy E, Sanchez I, Farhat F, Jegaden O. The right axillary artery approach for the Impella Recover LP 5.0 microaxial pump. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(4):1468–70.

Spiro J, Venugopal V, Raja Y, Ludman PF, Townend JN, Doshi SN. Feasibility and efficacy of the 2.5L and 3.8L Impella percutaneous left ventricular support device during high-risk, percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014. doi:10.1002/ccd.25355.

Brener SJ, Ellis SG, Schneider J, Topol EJ. Frequency and long-term impact of myonecrosis after coronary stenting. Eur Heart J. 2002;23(11):869–76.

Kini A, Marmur JD, Kini S, et al. Creatine kinase-MB elevation after coronary intervention correlates with diffuse atherosclerosis, and low-to-medium level elevation has a benign clinical course: implications for early discharge after coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(3):663–71.

Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, et al. ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(20):2569–619.

Kunadian B, Dunning J, Das R, et al. External validation of established risk adjustment models for procedural complications after percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart. 2008;94(8):1012–8.

Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECT I Trial): initial US experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(2):91–6.

Badawi RA, Grise MA, Thornton SN. Impella 2.5 assisted balloon aortic valvuloplasty and percutaneous coronary intervention as a bridge to heart transplantation. J Invasive Cardiol. 2012;24(5):229–30.

Londoño JC, Martinez CA, Singh V, O’Neill WW. Hemodynamic support with impella 2.5 during balloon aortic valvuloplasty in a high-risk patient. J Interv Cardiol. 2011;24(2):193–7.

Martinez CA, Singh V, Londoño JC, et al. Percutaneous retrograde left ventricular assist support for interventions in patients with aortic stenosis and left ventricular dysfunction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80(7):1201–9.

Bresson D, Sibellas F, Farhat F, Jegaden O, Kirkorian G, Bonnefoy E. Preliminary experience with Impella Recover((R)) LP5.0 in nine patients with cardiogenic shock: a new circulatory support system in the intensive cardiac care unit. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2011;104(8–9):458–64.

Roos JB, Doshi SN, Konorza T, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a new percutaneous ventricular assist device for high-risk PCI patients: mid-stage evaluation from the European perspective. J Med Econ. 2013;16(3):381–90.

Authors/Task Force members, Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35(37):2541–619.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Cardiology and Therapy

Tập 4

47-58

Thông tin tác giả