Cargando…
Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock
BACKGROUND: The Impella pump has emerged as a promising tool in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite its attractive properties, there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting and the potential role of Impella devices in CS patients from routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is an...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Science Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35317396 http://dx.doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.02.003 |
_version_ | 1784668017279369216 |
---|---|
author | Barrionuevo-Sánchez, María Isabel Ariza-Solé, Albert Ortiz-Berbel, Daniel González-Costello, José Gómez-Hospital, Joan Antoni Lorente, Victòria Alegre, Oriol Llaó, Isaac Sánchez-Salado, José Carlos Gómez-Lara, Josep Blasco-Lucas, Arnau Comin-Colet, Josep |
author_facet | Barrionuevo-Sánchez, María Isabel Ariza-Solé, Albert Ortiz-Berbel, Daniel González-Costello, José Gómez-Hospital, Joan Antoni Lorente, Victòria Alegre, Oriol Llaó, Isaac Sánchez-Salado, José Carlos Gómez-Lara, Josep Blasco-Lucas, Arnau Comin-Colet, Josep |
author_sort | Barrionuevo-Sánchez, María Isabel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Impella pump has emerged as a promising tool in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite its attractive properties, there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting and the potential role of Impella devices in CS patients from routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is an observational, retrospective, single center, cohort study. All consecutive patients with diagnosis of CS and undergoing support with Impella 2.5(®), Impella CP(®) or Impella 5.0(®) from April 2015 to December 2020 were included. Baseline characteristics, management and outcomes were assessed according to CS severity, age and cause of CS. Main outcome measured was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were included (median age: 59.3 ± 10 years). The most common cause of CS was acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (68%), followed by decompensation of previous cardiomyopathy (22%). A total of 13 patients (26%) had profound CS. Most patients (54%) improved pulmonary congestion at 48 h after Impella support. A total of 19 patients (38%) presented significant bleeding. In-hospital mortality was 42%. Among patients with profound CS (n = 13), five patients were previously supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. A total of eight patients (61.5%) died during the admission, and no patient achieved ventricular recovery. Older patients (≥ 67 years, n = 10) had more comorbidities and the highest mortality (70%). Among patients with ACS (n = 34), 35.3% of patients had profound CS; and in most cases (52.9%), Impella support was performed as a bridge to recovery. In contrast, only one patient from the decompensated cardiomyopathy group (n = 11) presented with profound CS. In 90.9% of these cases, Impella support was used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. There were no cases of death. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of real-life CS patients, Impella devices were used in different settings, with different clinical profiles and management. Despite a significant rate of complications, mortality was acceptable and lower than those observed in other series. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8915417 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Science Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89154172022-03-21 Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock Barrionuevo-Sánchez, María Isabel Ariza-Solé, Albert Ortiz-Berbel, Daniel González-Costello, José Gómez-Hospital, Joan Antoni Lorente, Victòria Alegre, Oriol Llaó, Isaac Sánchez-Salado, José Carlos Gómez-Lara, Josep Blasco-Lucas, Arnau Comin-Colet, Josep J Geriatr Cardiol Research Article BACKGROUND: The Impella pump has emerged as a promising tool in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite its attractive properties, there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting and the potential role of Impella devices in CS patients from routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is an observational, retrospective, single center, cohort study. All consecutive patients with diagnosis of CS and undergoing support with Impella 2.5(®), Impella CP(®) or Impella 5.0(®) from April 2015 to December 2020 were included. Baseline characteristics, management and outcomes were assessed according to CS severity, age and cause of CS. Main outcome measured was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were included (median age: 59.3 ± 10 years). The most common cause of CS was acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (68%), followed by decompensation of previous cardiomyopathy (22%). A total of 13 patients (26%) had profound CS. Most patients (54%) improved pulmonary congestion at 48 h after Impella support. A total of 19 patients (38%) presented significant bleeding. In-hospital mortality was 42%. Among patients with profound CS (n = 13), five patients were previously supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. A total of eight patients (61.5%) died during the admission, and no patient achieved ventricular recovery. Older patients (≥ 67 years, n = 10) had more comorbidities and the highest mortality (70%). Among patients with ACS (n = 34), 35.3% of patients had profound CS; and in most cases (52.9%), Impella support was performed as a bridge to recovery. In contrast, only one patient from the decompensated cardiomyopathy group (n = 11) presented with profound CS. In 90.9% of these cases, Impella support was used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. There were no cases of death. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of real-life CS patients, Impella devices were used in different settings, with different clinical profiles and management. Despite a significant rate of complications, mortality was acceptable and lower than those observed in other series. Science Press 2022-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8915417/ /pubmed/35317396 http://dx.doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.02.003 Text en Copyright and License information: Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) |
spellingShingle | Research Article Barrionuevo-Sánchez, María Isabel Ariza-Solé, Albert Ortiz-Berbel, Daniel González-Costello, José Gómez-Hospital, Joan Antoni Lorente, Victòria Alegre, Oriol Llaó, Isaac Sánchez-Salado, José Carlos Gómez-Lara, Josep Blasco-Lucas, Arnau Comin-Colet, Josep Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock |
title | Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock |
title_full | Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock |
title_fullStr | Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock |
title_full_unstemmed | Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock |
title_short | Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock |
title_sort | usefulness of impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915417/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35317396 http://dx.doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2022.02.003 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barrionuevosanchezmariaisabel usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT arizasolealbert usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT ortizberbeldaniel usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT gonzalezcostellojose usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT gomezhospitaljoanantoni usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT lorentevictoria usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT alegreoriol usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT llaoisaac usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT sanchezsaladojosecarlos usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT gomezlarajosep usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT blascolucasarnau usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock AT comincoletjosep usefulnessofimpellasupportindifferentclinicalsettingsincardiogenicshock |