Cargando…

Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction

Objectives: Several mechanical circulatory assist devices are used to treat critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support during post-myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock. However, little guidance is available to choose an appropriate device to match a particular patient's needs....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nix, Christoph, Ishikawa, Kiyotake, Meyns, Bart, Yasuda, Shota, Adriaenssens, Tom, Barth, Svenja, Zayat, Rashad, Leprince, Pascal, Lebreton, Guillaume
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299088/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32587862
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.00099
_version_ 1783547333220237312
author Nix, Christoph
Ishikawa, Kiyotake
Meyns, Bart
Yasuda, Shota
Adriaenssens, Tom
Barth, Svenja
Zayat, Rashad
Leprince, Pascal
Lebreton, Guillaume
author_facet Nix, Christoph
Ishikawa, Kiyotake
Meyns, Bart
Yasuda, Shota
Adriaenssens, Tom
Barth, Svenja
Zayat, Rashad
Leprince, Pascal
Lebreton, Guillaume
author_sort Nix, Christoph
collection PubMed
description Objectives: Several mechanical circulatory assist devices are used to treat critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support during post-myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock. However, little guidance is available to choose an appropriate device to match a particular patient's needs. An increased understanding of hemodynamic effects of the pump systems and their impact on myocardial pre-/afterload might help to better understand their behavior in different clinical settings. Methods: This was an open-labeled, randomized acute animal experiment. A model of acute univentricular myocardial injury by temporary balloon occlusion was used. The experiment was carried out in 10 juveniles female Piétrain pigs. The animals were randomized to mechanical hemodynamic support either by peripheral veno-arterial (VA-)ECMO or Impella CP. Results: While both devices were able to provide flows above 3 L/min and maintain sufficient end-organ perfusion, support by Impella resulted in a significantly more pronounced immediate effect on myocardial unloading: At the onset of device support, the remaining native cardiac output was reduced by 23.5 ± 15.3% ECMO vs. 66.2 ± 36.2% (Impella, p = 0.021). Native stroke volume was significantly decreased by Impella support compared to ECMO, indicating less mechanical work being conducted by the Impella-supported hearts despite similar total assisted cardiac output. Conclusions: Peripheral VA-ECMO and the transaortic Impella pump resulted in contrasting hemodynamic fingerprints. Both devices provided sufficient hemodynamic support and reduce left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in the acute setting. Treatment with the Impella device resulted in a more effective volume unloading of the left ventricle. A significant reduction in myocardial oxygen consumption equivalent was achieved by both devices: The Impella device resulted in a left-shift of the pressure-volume loop and a decreased pressure-volume-area (PVA), while VA-ECMO increased PVA but decreased heart rate. These data highlight the importance of specifically targeting heart rate in the management of AMI patients on hemodynamic support.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7299088
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72990882020-06-24 Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction Nix, Christoph Ishikawa, Kiyotake Meyns, Bart Yasuda, Shota Adriaenssens, Tom Barth, Svenja Zayat, Rashad Leprince, Pascal Lebreton, Guillaume Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine Objectives: Several mechanical circulatory assist devices are used to treat critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support during post-myocardial infarction or cardiogenic shock. However, little guidance is available to choose an appropriate device to match a particular patient's needs. An increased understanding of hemodynamic effects of the pump systems and their impact on myocardial pre-/afterload might help to better understand their behavior in different clinical settings. Methods: This was an open-labeled, randomized acute animal experiment. A model of acute univentricular myocardial injury by temporary balloon occlusion was used. The experiment was carried out in 10 juveniles female Piétrain pigs. The animals were randomized to mechanical hemodynamic support either by peripheral veno-arterial (VA-)ECMO or Impella CP. Results: While both devices were able to provide flows above 3 L/min and maintain sufficient end-organ perfusion, support by Impella resulted in a significantly more pronounced immediate effect on myocardial unloading: At the onset of device support, the remaining native cardiac output was reduced by 23.5 ± 15.3% ECMO vs. 66.2 ± 36.2% (Impella, p = 0.021). Native stroke volume was significantly decreased by Impella support compared to ECMO, indicating less mechanical work being conducted by the Impella-supported hearts despite similar total assisted cardiac output. Conclusions: Peripheral VA-ECMO and the transaortic Impella pump resulted in contrasting hemodynamic fingerprints. Both devices provided sufficient hemodynamic support and reduce left ventricular end-diastolic pressure in the acute setting. Treatment with the Impella device resulted in a more effective volume unloading of the left ventricle. A significant reduction in myocardial oxygen consumption equivalent was achieved by both devices: The Impella device resulted in a left-shift of the pressure-volume loop and a decreased pressure-volume-area (PVA), while VA-ECMO increased PVA but decreased heart rate. These data highlight the importance of specifically targeting heart rate in the management of AMI patients on hemodynamic support. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7299088/ /pubmed/32587862 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.00099 Text en Copyright © 2020 Nix, Ishikawa, Meyns, Yasuda, Adriaenssens, Barth, Zayat, Leprince and Lebreton. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Nix, Christoph
Ishikawa, Kiyotake
Meyns, Bart
Yasuda, Shota
Adriaenssens, Tom
Barth, Svenja
Zayat, Rashad
Leprince, Pascal
Lebreton, Guillaume
Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction
title Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction
title_full Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction
title_fullStr Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction
title_short Comparison of Hemodynamic Support by Impella vs. Peripheral Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Porcine Model of Acute Myocardial Infarction
title_sort comparison of hemodynamic support by impella vs. peripheral extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation: a porcine model of acute myocardial infarction
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7299088/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32587862
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.00099
work_keys_str_mv AT nixchristoph comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT ishikawakiyotake comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT meynsbart comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT yasudashota comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT adriaenssenstom comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT barthsvenja comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT zayatrashad comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT leprincepascal comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction
AT lebretonguillaume comparisonofhemodynamicsupportbyimpellavsperipheralextracorporealmembraneoxygenationaporcinemodelofacutemyocardialinfarction