Clinical Outcomes Among Cardiogenic Shock Patients Supported with High-Capacity Impella Axial Flow Pumps: A Report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

Bridge to heart replacement therapy Bridge to native heart recovery cardiogenic shock temporary mechanical circulatory support

Journal

The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation
ISSN: 1557-3117
Titre abrégé: J Heart Lung Transplant
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9102703

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 31 01 2024
revised: 09 05 2024
accepted: 28 05 2024
medline: 5 6 2024
pubmed: 5 6 2024
entrez: 4 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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. 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. 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 based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS). 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 pts 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 5.5 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). 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. High capacity Impella heart pumps provide up to 5.5 L/min of flow, while axillary surgical cannulation 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, and to reduce adverse event rates.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
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 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 based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS).
RESULTS 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 pts 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 5.5 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 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 CONCLUSIONS
High capacity Impella heart pumps provide up to 5.5 L/min of flow, while axillary surgical cannulation 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, and to reduce adverse event rates.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38834162
pii: S1053-2498(24)01690-5
doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2024.05.015
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Justin Fried (J)

Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.

Maryjane Farr (M)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas TX.

Manreet Kanwar (M)

Cardiovascular Institute at Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA.

Nir Uriel (N)

Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.

Jaime Hernandez Montfort (JH)

Baylor Scott and White Health, Temple, TX.

Vanessa Blumer (V)

Inova Schar Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

Song Li (S)

Medical City Healthcare, Dallas, TX.

Shashank S Sinha (SS)

Inova Schar Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.

A Reshad Garan (A)

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Borui Li (B)

The Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Shelley Hall (S)

Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, TX.

Gavin W Hickey (GW)

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA.

Claudius Mahr (C)

Medical City Healthcare, Dallas, TX.

Sandeep Nathan (S)

University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Andrew Schwartzman (A)

Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME.

Ju Kim (J)

Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, TX.

Van-Khue Ton (VK)

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MS.

Oleg A Vishnevsky (OA)

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.

Esther Vorovich (E)

Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL.

Jacob Abraham (J)

Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research and Data Science, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, OR.

Elric Zweck (E)

Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf, Germany.

Maya Guglin (M)

Indianapolis University, Indiana.

Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula (S)

Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, RI.

Rachna Kataria (R)

Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, RI.

Karol D Walec (KD)

The Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Peter Zazzali (P)

The Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Qiuyue Kong (Q)

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Paavani Sangal (P)

The Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Daniel Burkhoff (D)

Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY.

Navin K Kapur (NK)

The Cardiovascular Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. Electronic address: nkapur@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.

Classifications MeSH