Cargando…

The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience

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 rol...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pieri, Marina, Contri, Rachele, Winterton, Dario, Montorfano, Matteo, Colombo, Antonio, Zangrillo, Alberto, De Bonis, Michele, Pappalardo, Federico
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26466899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-015-0119-9
_version_ 1782395434382131200
author Pieri, Marina
Contri, Rachele
Winterton, Dario
Montorfano, Matteo
Colombo, Antonio
Zangrillo, Alberto
De Bonis, Michele
Pappalardo, Federico
author_facet Pieri, Marina
Contri, Rachele
Winterton, Dario
Montorfano, Matteo
Colombo, Antonio
Zangrillo, Alberto
De Bonis, Michele
Pappalardo, Federico
author_sort Pieri, Marina
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4606842
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46068422015-10-16 The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience Pieri, Marina Contri, Rachele Winterton, Dario Montorfano, Matteo Colombo, Antonio Zangrillo, Alberto De Bonis, Michele Pappalardo, Federico BMC Cardiovasc Disord Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2015-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4606842/ /pubmed/26466899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-015-0119-9 Text en © Pieri et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pieri, Marina
Contri, Rachele
Winterton, Dario
Montorfano, Matteo
Colombo, Antonio
Zangrillo, Alberto
De Bonis, Michele
Pappalardo, Federico
The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience
title The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience
title_full The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience
title_fullStr The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience
title_full_unstemmed The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience
title_short The contemporary role of Impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience
title_sort contemporary role of impella in a comprehensive mechanical circulatory support program: a single institutional experience
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4606842/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26466899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-015-0119-9
work_keys_str_mv AT pierimarina thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT contrirachele thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT wintertondario thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT montorfanomatteo thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT colomboantonio thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT zangrilloalberto thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT debonismichele thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT pappalardofederico thecontemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT pierimarina contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT contrirachele contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT wintertondario contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT montorfanomatteo contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT colomboantonio contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT zangrilloalberto contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT debonismichele contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience
AT pappalardofederico contemporaryroleofimpellainacomprehensivemechanicalcirculatorysupportprogramasingleinstitutionalexperience