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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |