The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience. Issue 1 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pieri, Marina; Contri, Rachele; Winterton, Dario; Montorfano, Matteo; Colombo, Antonio; Zangrillo, Alberto; De Bonis, Michele; Pappalardo, Federico
• Is Part Of: BMC cardiovascular disorders. Volume 15:Issue 1(2015)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Mechanical circulatory support -- Cardiogenic shock -- IMPELLA -- ECMO; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1186/s12872-015-0119-9
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1471-2261

Abstract

Abstract Background The treatment of cardiogenic shock with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is attractive: however, at present it is not clear which is the best strategy, as no survival benefit has been demonstrated for any device as single therapy. Aim of this study is to describe the role of percutaneous Impella in a comprehensive MCS program. Methods Observational study on 22 patients supported with the Impella device in our hospital from May 2013 to June 2014. Results Four patients (18 %) were treated with Impella alone, 8 patients (36 %) were treated with Impella and IABP, 6 patients (27 %) with Impella and VA ECMO, and 4 patients (18 %) with Impella, IABP and VA ECMO. The cause of cardiogenic shock was myocardial infarction (CSMI) in 9 patients (41 %), postcardiotomic cardiogenic shock in 5 (23 %), and a miscellaneous of other causes in the remaining 8 (36 %). Eight Impella devices (36 %) were placed under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance, while 14 (64 %) under fluoroscopy. The device was removed with manual compression at bedside and no vascular complications were observed. Duration of Impella support was 107 (54–141) hours and duration of ventilation was 48 (14–92) hours. Hemolysis occurred in 6 patients (27 %), while major bleeding in 4 patients (18 %). Survival was 73 %: 13 patients (58 %) showed recovery of cardiac function; 1 patient (5 %) was bridged to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, 1 patient (5 %) to heart transplantation (HTx) and 1 patient (5 %) received a BiVAD and was eventually bridged to HTx. Conclusions Our data suggest that a multi-device approach, encompassing active LV support with Impella, is safe and can significantly improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock.