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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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