No abstract

OBJECTIVES: Early mechanical circulatory support with Impella may improve survival outcomes in the setting of postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, the optimal timing to initiate mechanical circulatory support in this particular setting remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare survival outcomes of patients supported with Impella 2.5 before percutaneous coronary intervention (pre-PCI) with those supported after percutaneous coronary intervention (post-PCI). DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study between September 2014 and December 2019 admitted to the Cardiac Arrest Center in Marburg, Germany. PATIENTS: Out of 2,105 patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to acute myocardial infarction with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock between September 2014 and December 2019 and admitted to our regional cardiac arrest center, 81 consecutive patients receiving Impella 2.5 during admission coronary angiogram were identified. OUTCOMES/MEASUREMENTS: Survival outcomes were compared between those with Impella support pre-PCI to those with support post-PCI. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 81 consecutive patients with infarct-related postcardiac arrest shock supported with Impella 2.5 during admission coronary angiogram were included. All patients were in profound cardiogenic shock requiring catecholamines at admission. Overall survival to discharge and at 6 months was 40.7% and 38.3%, respectively. Patients in the pre-PCI group had a higher survival to discharge and at 6 months as compared to patients of the post-PCI group (54.3% vs 30.4%; p = 0.04 and 51.4% vs 28.2%; p = 0.04, respectively). Furthermore, the patients in the early support group demonstrated a greater functional recovery of the left ventricle and a better restoration of the end-organ function when Impella support was initiated prior to percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the early initiation of mechanical circulatory support with Impella 2.5 prior to percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved hospital and 6-month survival in patients with postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

Background Percutaneous mechanical circulatory devices are increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). As evidence from randomized studies comparing these devices are lacking, optimal choice of the device type is unclear. Here we aim to compare outcomes of patients with CS supported with either Impella or vaECMO. Methods Retrospective single-center analysis of patients with CS, from September 2014 to September 2019. Patients were assisted with either Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO. Patients supported ultimately with both devices were analyzed according to the first device implanted. Primary outcomes were hospital and 6-month survival. Secondary endpoints were complications. Survival outcomes were compared using propensity-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between both groups. Results A total of 423 patients were included (Impella, n = 300 and vaECMO, n = 123). Survival rates were similar in both groups (hospital survival: Impella 47.7% and vaECMO 37.3%, p = 0.07; 6-month survival Impella 45.7% and vaECMO 35.8%, p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in survival rates, even after adjustment for baseline differences (hospital survival: Impella 50.6% and vaECMO 38.6%, p = 0.16; 6-month survival Impella 45.8% and vaECMO 38.6%, p = 0.43). Access-site bleeding and leg ischemia occurred more frequently in patients with vaECMO (17% versus 7.3%, p = 0.004; 17% versus 7.7%, p = 0.008). Conclusions In this retrospective analysis of patients with CS, treatment with Impella 2.5/CP or vaECMO was associated with similar hospital and 6-month survival rates. Device-related access-site vascular complications occurred more frequently in the vaECMO group. A randomized trial is warranted to examine the effects of these devices on outcomes and to determine the optimal device choice in patients with CS.

Our aim was to compare the outcomes of Impella with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in patients with post-cardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This was a retrospective study of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with post-cardiac arrest CS following AMI (May 2015 to May 2020). Patients were supported either with Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS. Outcomes were compared using propensity score-matched analysis to account for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. 159 patients were included (Impella, n = 105; ECLS, n = 54). Hospital and 12-month survival rates were comparable in the Impella and the ECLS groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.3, respectively). After adjustment for baseline differences, both groups demonstrated comparable hospital and 12-month survival (p = 0.36 and p = 0.64, respectively). Impella patients had a significantly greater left ventricle ejection-fraction (LVEF) improvement at 96 h (p < 0.01 vs. p = 0.44 in ECLS) and significantly fewer device-associated complications than ECLS patients (15.2% versus 35.2%, p < 0.01 for relevant access site bleeding, 7.6% versus 20.4%, p = 0.04 for limb ischemia needing intervention). In subgroup analyses, Impella was associated with better survival in patients with lower-risk features (lactate < 8.6 mmol/L, time from collapse to return of spontaneous circulation < 28 min, vasoactive score < 46 and Horowitz index > 182). In conclusion, the use of Impella 2.5/CP or ECLS in post-cardiac arrest CS after AMI was associated with comparable adjusted hospital and 12-month survival. Impella patients had a greater LVEF improvement than ECLS patients. Device-related access-site complications occurred more frequently in patients with ECLS than Impella support.

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of left ventricular support with the microaxial left ventricular pump using the Impella device on the renal resistive index assessed by Doppler ultrasonography in haemodynamically stable patients with cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction. Methods: A non-randomised interventional single-centre study. Consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock supported with an Impella were included during May 2018 and October 2018. The renal resistive index determined as a quotient of (peak systolic velocity -end diastolic velocity)/ peak systolic velocity was obtained using Doppler ultrasound; invasive blood pressure was determined in radial artery simultaneously for safety reasons. Results: A total of 15 patients were measured. The renal resistive index was determined in both kidneys in 13 patients and for one kidney in two patients, respectively. The mean difference between right and left renal resistive index was 0.026 ± 0.023 (P=0.72). When increasing the Impella microaxillar mechanical support by a mean of 0.44 L/min (±0.2 L/min), the renal resistive index decreased significantly from 0.66 ± 0.08 to 0.62 ± 0.06 (P<0.001) consistently in all patients, whereas systolic or diastolic blood pressure remained unchanged. Conclusions: Microaxillar mechanical support by the Impella device in haemodynamically stable patients with cardiogenic shock led to a significant reduction of the renal resistive index without affecting systolic or diastolic blood pressure. This observation is consistent with the notion that Impella support may promote renal organ protection by enhancing renal perfusion.