Cargando…

Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support

Despite the growing utilization of a large microaxial pump, i. e., Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) (Impella 5+) for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), adverse events including the necessity of re-implantation have not been well discussed. In all 67 patients, in-hospital mortal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sugimura, Yukiharu, Bauer, Sebastian, Immohr, Moritz Benjamin, Mehdiani, Arash, Rellecke, Philipp, Westenfeld, Ralf, Aubin, Hug, Boeken, Udo, Lichtenberg, Artur, Akhyari, Payam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9300886/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35872893
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.926389
_version_ 1784751309222576128
author Sugimura, Yukiharu
Bauer, Sebastian
Immohr, Moritz Benjamin
Mehdiani, Arash
Rellecke, Philipp
Westenfeld, Ralf
Aubin, Hug
Boeken, Udo
Lichtenberg, Artur
Akhyari, Payam
author_facet Sugimura, Yukiharu
Bauer, Sebastian
Immohr, Moritz Benjamin
Mehdiani, Arash
Rellecke, Philipp
Westenfeld, Ralf
Aubin, Hug
Boeken, Udo
Lichtenberg, Artur
Akhyari, Payam
author_sort Sugimura, Yukiharu
collection PubMed
description Despite the growing utilization of a large microaxial pump, i. e., Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) (Impella 5+) for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), adverse events including the necessity of re-implantation have not been well discussed. In all 67 patients, in-hospital mortality was 52.2% (n = 35). Explantation of Impella 5+ was performed in 39 patients (58.2%), 22 of whom (32.8%) recovered under Impella 5+, and ten further patients (14.9%) survived after a successful transition to permanent mechanical circulatory support. Embolic events were considerable complications in each access. They occurred in the right arm after the removal of Impella 5+ via a subclavian artery (SA) (n = 3, 9.1%) or in the form of leg ischemia in patients with Impella 5+ via femoral artery (FA) (n = 2, 33.3%). Re-implantation was necessary for 10 patients (14.9%) due to 1) recurrent CS (n = 3), 2) pump thrombosis (n = 5), or 3) pump dislocation (n = 2), all of which were successfully performed via the same access route. In univariate analysis, FA access was a significant risk factor for Impella dysfunction compared to SA access (FA vs. SA, 42.9% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.05, odds ratio 6.88). No statistical difference of overall mortality was observed in patients with Impella 5+ re-implantation (n = 10) compared to patients with primary Impella 5+ support (n = 57) (80.0% (n = 8/10) vs. 47.4% (n = 27/57), p = 0.09). Our results suggested the acceptable clinical outcome of Impella 5+ despite a 15% re-implantation rate. Our observational data may merit further analysis of anticoagulation strategies, including risk stratification for embolic events.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9300886
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93008862022-07-22 Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support Sugimura, Yukiharu Bauer, Sebastian Immohr, Moritz Benjamin Mehdiani, Arash Rellecke, Philipp Westenfeld, Ralf Aubin, Hug Boeken, Udo Lichtenberg, Artur Akhyari, Payam Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine Despite the growing utilization of a large microaxial pump, i. e., Impella 5.0 or 5.5 (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) (Impella 5+) for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), adverse events including the necessity of re-implantation have not been well discussed. In all 67 patients, in-hospital mortality was 52.2% (n = 35). Explantation of Impella 5+ was performed in 39 patients (58.2%), 22 of whom (32.8%) recovered under Impella 5+, and ten further patients (14.9%) survived after a successful transition to permanent mechanical circulatory support. Embolic events were considerable complications in each access. They occurred in the right arm after the removal of Impella 5+ via a subclavian artery (SA) (n = 3, 9.1%) or in the form of leg ischemia in patients with Impella 5+ via femoral artery (FA) (n = 2, 33.3%). Re-implantation was necessary for 10 patients (14.9%) due to 1) recurrent CS (n = 3), 2) pump thrombosis (n = 5), or 3) pump dislocation (n = 2), all of which were successfully performed via the same access route. In univariate analysis, FA access was a significant risk factor for Impella dysfunction compared to SA access (FA vs. SA, 42.9% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.05, odds ratio 6.88). No statistical difference of overall mortality was observed in patients with Impella 5+ re-implantation (n = 10) compared to patients with primary Impella 5+ support (n = 57) (80.0% (n = 8/10) vs. 47.4% (n = 27/57), p = 0.09). Our results suggested the acceptable clinical outcome of Impella 5+ despite a 15% re-implantation rate. Our observational data may merit further analysis of anticoagulation strategies, including risk stratification for embolic events. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9300886/ /pubmed/35872893 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.926389 Text en Copyright © 2022 Sugimura, Bauer, Immohr, Mehdiani, Rellecke, Westenfeld, Aubin, Boeken, Lichtenberg and Akhyari. https://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
Sugimura, Yukiharu
Bauer, Sebastian
Immohr, Moritz Benjamin
Mehdiani, Arash
Rellecke, Philipp
Westenfeld, Ralf
Aubin, Hug
Boeken, Udo
Lichtenberg, Artur
Akhyari, Payam
Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
title Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_full Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_fullStr Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_full_unstemmed Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_short Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
title_sort outcome of patients supported by large impella systems after re-implantation due to continued or recurrent need of temporary mechanical circulatory support
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9300886/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35872893
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.926389
work_keys_str_mv AT sugimurayukiharu outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT bauersebastian outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT immohrmoritzbenjamin outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT mehdianiarash outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT relleckephilipp outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT westenfeldralf outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT aubinhug outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT boekenudo outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT lichtenbergartur outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport
AT akhyaripayam outcomeofpatientssupportedbylargeimpellasystemsafterreimplantationduetocontinuedorrecurrentneedoftemporarymechanicalcirculatorysupport