IMR Press / RCM / Volume 22 / Issue 4 / DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2204154
Open Access Systematic Review
Impella as unloading strategy during VA-ECMO: systematic review and meta-analysis
Show Less
1 Department of Cardiology, Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Harefield Hospital, UB9 6JH Harefield, UK
2 Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, SW3 6LY London, UK
*Correspondence: v.panoulas@imperial.ac.uk (Vasileios Panoulas)
Academic Editors: John Lynn Jefferies and Karim Bendjelid
Rev. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 22(4), 1503–1511; https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2204154
Submitted: 12 August 2021 | Revised: 22 September 2021 | Accepted: 13 October 2021 | Published: 22 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cardiogenic Shock)
Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Abstract

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used as mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS). It restores peripheral perfusion, at the expense of increased left ventricle (LV) afterload. In this setting, Impella can be used as direct unloading strategy. Aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate efficacy and safety of LV unloading with Impella during ECMO in CS. A systematic search on Medline, Scopus and Cochrane Library was performed using as combination of keywords: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, percutaneous micro axial pump, ECPELLA, cardiogenic shock. We aimed to include studies, which compared the use of ECMO with and without Impella (ECPELLA vs. ECMO). Primary endpoint was short-term all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints included major bleeding, haemolysis, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Five studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total population of 972 patients. The ECPELLA cohort showed improved survival compared to the control group (RR (Risk Ratio): 0.86; 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 0.76, 0.96; p = 0.009). When including in the analysis only studies with homogeneous comparator groups, LV unloading with Impella remained associated with significant reduction in mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97; p = 0.01). Haemolysis (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.15; p < 0.00001) and RRT (RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.21; p = 0.03) occurred at a higher rate in the ECPELLA group. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of major bleeding (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.88, 2.13; p = 0.16) and CVA (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.38; p = 0.66). In conclusion, LV unloading with Impella during ECMO was associated with improved survival, despite increased haemolysis and need for RRT, without additional risk of major bleeding and CVA.

Keywords
Impella
ECMO
ECPELLA
Left ventricular unloading
Cardiogenic shock
Meta-analysis
1. Introduction

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a major cause of in-hospital mortality when caused by acute myocardial infarction [1, 2]. In addition, epidemiological reviews of contemporary coronary care units revealed that up to 70% of cases of CS are secondary to conditions other than acute coronary syndrome (ACS), such as non-ischemic and chronic ischemic cardiomyopathies, valvular dysfunction and shock sustained by arrhythmias [3]. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is widely used as mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in refractory CS and peri-arrest scenarios leading to maintained peripheral perfusion and restored end-organ function [4]. Despite its beneficial effect on organ perfusion, VA-ECMO increases left ventricular (LV) afterload, therefore potentially damaging further an already failing myocardium. Several strategies have been used to decrease LV afterload or directly unload the left heart: surgical procedures (atrial septostomy, direct LV, left atrial or pulmonary artery venting), use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and use of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD). One of the commonly used pLVADs is the micro axial pump, Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA).

In the last few years, the use of Impella has markedly increased in the setting of ACS complicated by cardiogenic shock, with promising results [5]. However, there is still limited data regarding the use of Impella in patients with CS during ECMO support. Few recent meta-analyses tried to explore this setting, however they included heterogeneous populations and support strategies [6, 7].

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the impact on clinical outcomes of LV unloading with Impella during VA-ECMO vs. isolated ECMO, selecting homogeneous populations in order to provide more reliable results.

2. Material and methods
2.1 Search strategy, inclusion criteria and endpoints

This systematic review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA guidance (Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) [8, 9]. We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus databases from January 2000 to September 2021 for all trials comparing ECMO unloading strategies. Our search strings included ‘extracorporeal membrane oxygenation’, ‘Impella’, ‘percutaneous micro axial pump’, ‘ECPELLA’ (concomitant use of ECMO and Impella), ‘cardiogenic shock’ (Supplementary Table 1). The resulting citations were imported into Endnote X7 and duplicates removed by manual inspection.

We aimed to include randomised controlled trials, propensity matched studies and observational case-control studies with no differences in baseline characteristics, which compared the use of ECMO with and without Impella (ECPELLA vs. ECMO). Case reports or series, systematic reviews and studies with unmatched populations or no uniform patient characteristics in the compared groups were excluded from the analysis.

Primary endpoint was short-term all-cause mortality (defined as mortality during hospital stay or within 30 days); secondary endpoints included major bleeding, haemolysis (defined as increase of lactate dehydrogenase serum level above 1000 U/L or greater than two and one-half times the upper limits of normal range), need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) and cerebrovascular accident.

Included studies were assessed using the “The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions” (ROBINS-I) tool (Supplementary Material 2) [10].

2.2 Statistical analysis

Outcomes were analysed on an intention to treat basis. The risk ratios were computed with the Mantel-Haenszel model using the random and fixed effect models, as appropriate. Heterogeneity among the selected studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test. Significant heterogeneity was considered for I2 >50% and p values < 0.05, and a random effect model was used in this case. Publication bias was estimated by visual inspection of funnel plots for asymmetry. The risk of bias was assessed using the “Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions” (ROBINS-I) tool. All data was processed using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4, Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK).

3. Results
3.1 Search result

Of a total of 1897 studies identified in the original search only 5 met the inclusion criteria [11, 12, 13, 14, 15] (Fig. 1). Funnel plot for asymmetry was used to look for publication bias the studies included (Fig. 2). There were no available randomised clinical trials. The characteristics of the included studies are described in Table 1 (Ref. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]). As per our study design, we selected only propensity matched retrospective studies (with a 2:1 and a 1:1 ratio) [11, 13] or retrospective case-control trials with similar baseline characteristics [12, 14, 15]. Where matched and unmatched data were described, we analysed only figures from propensity matched cohorts.

Fig. 1.

Search flow diagram. Systematic search of Medline, Scopus and Cochrane library was performed with identification of 1897 articles. After duplicate removal and title/abstract review, 61 citations were selected for full text review. Five studies were included in the analysis with a total population of 972 patients, 353 in the ECPELLA and 619 in the ECMO cohort.

Fig. 2.

Funnel plot analysis for publication bias. RR, Risk ratio; SE, Standard error.

Table 1.Characteristics of included studies.
Reference Country (n. centres) Study durantion Study design Cardiogenic shock definition Mortality
Pappalardo 2017 [11] Italy, Germany (2) January 2013–April 2015 Retrospective - Hospital mortality
Propensity match
2:1 ratio
Akanni 2019 [14] United States (1) February 2011–October 2014 Retrospective (1) SBP <90 mmHg, CI <2.0 L/ min/m2, wedge pressure >16 mmHg and evidence of end-organ failure 30-day
Case-control (2) inability to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass for post-cardiotomy shock despite maximal support
Patel 2019 [12] United States (1) 2014–2016 Retrospective SBP <90 mmHg, CI <1.8 L/min/m2 without support or <2.2 L/min/m2 with support, PCWP >18 mmHg, pH <7.4/lactate >4 mol/L, hypoperfusion 30-day
Case-control
Homogeneous populations
Schrage 2020 [13] Germany, United States, France, Italy (16) 2005–2019 Retrospective - 30-day
Propensity match
1:1 ratio
Gaisendrees 2021 [15] Germany (1) January 2016–December 2020 Retrospective - Hospital mortality
Case-control

There was not significant heterogeneity between the selected studies for the named outcomes, except for bleeding complications and need for RRT (Figs. 3,4, Ref. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]).

Fig. 3.

Primary outcome. (A) All cause-mortality assessed with fixed effect meta-analysis including the five selected studies [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. (B) All cause-mortality assessed with random effect meta-analysis including the five selected studies [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. (C) All cause-mortality with fixed effect meta-analysis including propensity matched or homogeneous population studies [11, 12, 13]. (D) All cause-mortality with random effect meta-analysis including propensity matched or homogeneous population studies [11, 12, 13]. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CI, confidence interval; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; ECPELLA, ECMO + Impella.

Fig. 4.

Secondary outcome. (A) Major bleeding. (B) Haemolysis. (C) Renal replacement therapy (RRT). (D) Cerebrovascular accident (CVA). M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CI, confidence interval; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; ECPELLA, ECMO + Impella.

On a different note, we excluded recent or previously considered studies in other meta-analyses [6, 7, 16] due to heterogeneity in populations and support strategies. In details, in Char’s study the compared cohorts were not uniform [16]; Mourad mainly analysed ECMO vs. Impella [17] and Tepper studied two different venting techniques during ECMO, Impella vs surgical approach [18].

3.2 Study population

A total of 972 patients were included in the selected studies, 353 in the ECPELLA and 619 in the ECMO cohort. Demographic and clinical characteristics for each study are shown in Table 2 (Ref. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]). There was no significant difference between baseline clinical data in patients supported with ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) or with ECMO only.

Table 2.Baseline characteristics.
Study Pappalardo 2017 [11] Akanni 2019 [14] Patel 2019 [12] Schrage 2020 [13] Gaisendrees 2021 [15]
Charact. ECPELLA (n = 21) ECMO (n = 42) p value ECPELLA (n = 29) ECMO (n = 196) p value ECPELLA (n = 30) ECMO (n = 36) p value ECPELLA (n = 255) ECMO (n = 255) p value ECPELLA (n = 18) ECMO (n = 90) p value
Age, years 51 (47–61) 54.5 (46–65) 0.6 63 (53–67) 57 (48–67) - 55 (50–66) 63 (50–71) 0.23 56.39 ± 12.72 56.55 ± 13.21 0.07 57 (47.5–65) 56.5 (45–66) 0.98
Male gender, n (%) 18 (86) 37 (88) 0.5 23 (79) 133 (67.86) - 20 (67) 25 (70) 1.00 195/255 (76.5) 195/255 (76.5) 0.99 15 (84) 73 (82) 0.82
CPR 12 (57) 28 (67) 0.5 - - - 12 (40) 15 (42) 1.00 84/255 (32.9) 88/255 (34.5) 0.03 - - -
STEMI 10 (48) 20 (48) 1 16 (55) 42 (21.43) - 15 (50) 6 (17) 0.007 119/158 (75.3) 124/162 (76.5) 0.48 12 (67) 49 (55) 0.16
PCI 9 (43) 18 (43) 1 - - - 9 (30) 1 (2.8) 0.004 129/146 (88.4) 145/152 (95.4) 0.26 12 (67) 49 (55) 0.16
SAVE score −9 (−12– −2) −8 (−11– −6) 0.8 - - - −6 (−11– −3) −9 (−14– −3) 0.47 −8.68 ± 6.91 −7.67 ± 6.13 0.15 - - -
PH 7.31 (7.08–7.39) 7.27 (6.98–7.43) 0.7 - - - 7.3 (7.2–7.4) 7.2 (7.1–7.4) 0.18 - - - 6.96 (6.81–7.0) 6.90 (6.8–7.1) 0.7
Lactate, mmol/L 9.02 (4.60–11.00) 9.03 (4.05–14.17) 1 - - - 3.6 (2–7) 7.6 (2.4–12.6) 0.094 8.58 ± 5.67 8.55 ± 5.69 0.48 12.68 (10.74–17) 13.5 (10.45–16) 0.84
Values are n (%), mean ± SD or median (interquartile range). CPR, Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation; STEMI, ST elevation myocardial infarction; PCI, percutaeneous coronary intervention; SAVE, Survival After Veno-arterial Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
3.3 Outcomes

In the five selected studies, the overall short-term mortality was 60.9%; crude mortality in the ECPELLA and ECMO groups was 56.1% and 63.7%, respectively. The population supported by ECMO with LV unloading was associated with significantly improved survival compared to the control group (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.96; p = 0.009, Fixed effect; RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.98; p = 0.03, Random effect) (Fig. 3A,B).

Including in the analysis only propensity matched studies or those with no significant differences in baseline characteristics in the comparator groups [11, 12, 13], LV unloading with Impella during ECMO remained associated with significant reduction in mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97; p = 0.01, Fixed effect; RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.98; p = 0.03, Random effect) (Fig. 3C,D).

Secondary outcomes are reported in Fig. 4. Haemolysis and renal replacement therapy occurred at a higher rate in the ECPELLA group, 36.8% and 51.6%, respectively, compared to the ECMO group, 21.2% and 28.7%, respectively (Haemolysis: RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.15; p < 0.00001. Renal replacement therapy: RR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.21; p = 0.03). There was no difference between the two groups with regards to major bleeding (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.88, 2.13; p = 0.16) and cerebrovascular accident (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.61, 1.38; p = 0.66).

4. Discussion

In the current meta-analysis simultaneous LV unloading of CS patients treated with ECMO leads to improved short-term survival at a cost of higher haemolysis and RRT rates. No differences were observed with regards to major bleeding complications or cerebrovascular accidents.

Cardiogenic shock can complicate several acute pathologies beyond ACS, and its in-hospital mortality remains high despite the progress in interventional and medical therapies [2, 3, 19]. In the context of CS, MCS devices support organ perfusion and provide hemodynamic stability as bridge to recovery or long-term treatment, such as transplant or durable LV assist device [20, 21]. ECMO is widely used in refractory CS and cardiac arrest scenarios [4]. It provides biventricular support and restores peripheral perfusion; however, it does not provide a direct LV unloading effect, increasing, on the contrary, the afterload. LV pressure overload leads to LV dilatation, increase in left atrial (LA) pressure, and refractory pulmonary oedema. Furthermore, LV overload increases wall stress and myocardial oxygen consumption, resulting in myocardial ischemia. If the overload is extreme and LV contractile impairment significant, the aortic valve can remain closed during systole, causing LV blood stasis and thrombotic events [22]. On the contrary, effective LV unloading allows myocardial recovery, and it has been suggested that the degree of reverse remodelling depends on the degree of unloading provided [22, 23, 24]. Furthermore, recent retrospective studies suggest that the use of LV venting during VA ECMO has a potential impact on mortality [13, 25, 26].

Many surgical and percutaneous unloading strategies are available: venting cannula inserted through the right upper pulmonary vein via pre-existing sternotomy, in patients with post-cardiotomy CS; minimally invasive surgical approaches (sub xiphoidal or anterolateral); transeptal venting with creation of an atrial septal defect to decompress the LA; indirect unloading with IABP inserted via femoral arterial access and positioned in the descending aorta; percutaneous transvalvular micro axial pumps (Impella) via peripheral arterial access.

The hemodynamic benefit of Impella during ECMO has been described, with decrease in capillary wedge pressure, pulmonary pressures and vascular resistances [27]; however, there is still limited data regarding the clinical impact of this strategy. Recent metanalyses have tried to review the available studies, however they included heterogeneous populations and no uniform support strategies [6, 7].

Our analysis focussed on the use of Impella as direct unloading device and selected only propensity matched or case-controlled studies with similar baseline characteristics, in order to reduce heterogeneity and provide more reliable results. Furthermore, this is the first metanalysis that includes the recent relevant figures of Schrage et al. [13] on a matched population of 500 patients.

In our meta-analysis LV unloading with Impella was associated with improved survival compared to support with isolated ECMO. However, the use of a second device increased the rate of haemolysis and need for RRT, with no additional risk of major bleeding or cerebrovascular events.

It has been previously reported that the mechanical characteristics of the micro axial pump increases the shear stress on blood components, leading to various degree of haemolysis [28, 29]. In addition, this phenomenon might contribute to a certain extent to the higher rate of RRT. The association between haemolysis and acute kidney injury is well described in literature [30], aggravating in this scenario the critical condition of shock characterised by renal hypoperfusion and venous congestion.

Interestingly, the increased complexity added by a second device did not increase the rate of major bleeding, contrary to previous data on the use of Impella alone in CS [31, 32]. ECMO per se requires large-bore vascular access and therapeutic anticoagulation, therefore, a second device might not entail a significant additional risk of bleeding or other severe complications.

On a different note, timing for LV unloading and its impact on mortality remains controversial; to date there is no expert consensus and decisions on LV unloading escalation relies on physician expertise, and it is often performed as bailout strategy once the consequences of increased LV afterload become apparent. Preliminary data from observational studies and meta-analysis suggest benefit in early LV unloading compared to delayed escalation strategies [13, 33], however no clear thresholds have been identified.

In our institution we advocate early unloading guided by biochemical, echocardiographic, radiological, or hemodynamic evidence of suboptimal LV unloading despite optimal medical therapy (inotropes, vasopressor support, diuretics). We propose a few parameters that should indicate the need for early LV unloading: hemodynamic signs of high filling pressures with wedge pressure above 17 mmHg [34] and central venous pressure above 14 mmHg [35]; biochemical evidence of LV overload and impaired myocardial perfusion (increase in Brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) values at 24 and 72 h [36, 37, 38], troponin increase in the first 48 h with no underlying ischemic cause); echocardiographic evidence of overload (LV end-diastolic diameter increase of more than 1 cm from baseline, worsening mitral regurgitation and lack of aortic valve opening); radiological signs of worsening pulmonary oedema.

These parameters could help in the discussion regarding escalation criteria, however, data from the ongoing REVERSE randomised trial (NCT03431467) and future clinical studies will add relevant information to the current practice regarding LV unloading during ECMO.

5. Study limitation

First important limitation in our analysis is the small number of studies included, with relatively limited sample sizes. Secondly, the observational and retrospective design of the original papers could have caused under-reporting of adverse events and indeed selection bias. Third, the timing for mortality was not uniform in the five studies, three reported 30-days mortality and two studies referred to in-hospital mortality. In addition, the definitions used by the authors for bleeding and its grading scale was different in each paper. Pappalardo et al. [11] considered major bleeding all intracranial, retroperitoneal, intraocular and retropharyngeal bleeding, bleeding of the cannulation site requiring either radiological or surgical intervention, cannulation site haematoma >5 cm, a decrease in haemoglobin serum value >4 g/dL in the absence of identification of bleeding site, or >3 g/dL in the case of an identified bleeding site, and bleeding requiring transfusion of a least three red blood cell units; Patel referred to the Bleeding academic research consortium (BARC) definition; Schrage used the GUSTO (Global Utilisation of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries) criteria; Akanni did not provide any specific definition and Gaisendrees reported only the number of units of red blood cells transfused. Furthermore, the definition of CS was reported only in two studies and there was not enough data to analyse mortality in relation to aetiology of CS.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, LV unloading with Impella during ECMO in patients with CS was associated with improved survival, despite increase in haemolysis rate and need for RRT. Moreover, no additional risk for major bleeding and cerebrovascular events was observed.

Author contributions

FF conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, final approval; VP conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, revising the article, final approval. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Acknowledgment

We would like to express our gratitude to all those who assisted in the drafting of this manuscript. Thanks to all the peer reviewers for their opinions and suggestions.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Vasileios Panoulas is serving as one of the Editorial Board members of this journal. We declare that Vasileios Panoulas had no involvement in the peer review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to Karim Bendjelid and John Lynn Jefferies.

References
[1]
Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, Jneid H, Latif F, Karrowni W, et al. Temporal Trends and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Cardiogenic Shock in the Setting of Acute Myocardial Infarction. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2016; 9: 341–351.
[2]
Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 2671–2683.
[3]
Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S, Katz JN, Alviar CL, Baird-Zars VM, et al. Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2019; 12: e005618.
[4]
Tarzia V, Bortolussi G, Bianco R, Buratto E, Bejko J, Carrozzini M, et al. Extracorporeal life support in cardiogenic shock: Impact of acute versus chronic etiology on outcome. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2015; 150: 333–340.
[5]
Basir MB, Kapur NK, Patel K, Salam MA, Schreiber T, Kaki A, et al. Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019; 93: 1173–1183.
[6]
Grajeda Silvestri ER, Pino JE, Donath E, Torres P, Chait R, Ghumman W. Impella to unload the left ventricle in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 2020; 35: 1237–1242.
[7]
Vallabhajosyula S, O’Horo JC, Antharam P, Ananthaneni S, Vallabhajosyula S, Stulak JM, et al. Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation with Concomitant Impella Versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock. ASAIO Journal. 2020; 66: 497–503.
[8]
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009; 6: e1000097.
[9]
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 2021; 372: n71.
[10]
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. British Medical Journal. 2016; 355: i4919.
[11]
Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M, Schrage B, Contri R, Soeffker G, et al. Concomitant implantation of Impella® on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. European journal of heart failure. 2017; 19: 404–412.
[12]
Patel SM, Lipinski J, Al-Kindi SG, Patel T, Saric P, Li J, et al. Simultaneous Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Percutaneous Left Ventricular Decompression Therapy with Impella is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock. ASAIO Journal. 2019; 65: 21–28.
[13]
Schrage B, Becher PM, Bernhardt A, Bezerra H, Blankenberg S, Brunner S, et al. Left Ventricular Unloading is Associated with Lower Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock Patients Treated with Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Results From an International, Multicenter Cohort Study. Circulation. 2020; 142: 2095–2106.
[14]
Akanni OJ, Takeda K, Truby LK, Kurlansky PA, Chiuzan C, Han J, et al. EC-VAD: Combined Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Percutaneous Microaxial Pump Left Ventricular Assist Device. ASAIO Journal. 2019; 65: 219–226.
[15]
Gaisendrees C, Djordjevic I, Sabashnikov A, Adler C, Eghbalzadeh K, Ivanov B, et al. Impact of left ventricular unloading using a peripheral Impella®-pump in eCPR patients. Artificial Organs. 2021. (in press)
[16]
Char S, Fried J, Melehy A, Mehta S, Ning Y, Kurlansky P, et al. Clinical Efficacy of Direct or Indirect Left Ventricular Unloading during Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Primary Cardiogenic Shock. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2021. (in press)
[17]
Mourad M, Gaudard P, De La Arena P, Eliet J, Zeroual N, Rouvière P, et al. Circulatory Support with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and/or Impella for Cardiogenic Shock during Myocardial Infarction. ASAIO Journal. 2018; 64: 708–714.
[18]
Tepper S, Masood MF, Baltazar Garcia M, Pisani M, Ewald GA, Lasala JM, et al. Left Ventricular Unloading by Impella Device Versus Surgical Vent during Extracorporeal Life Support. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2017; 104: 861–867.
[19]
Schrage B, Weimann J, Dabboura S, Yan I, Hilal R, Becher PM, et al. Patient Characteristics, Treatment and Outcome in Non-Ischemic vs. Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9: 931.
[20]
Schrage B, Westermann D. Mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock and acute heart failure. Current Opinion in Critical Care. 2019; 25: 391–396.
[21]
Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL, Dixon SR, Moses JW, Maini BS, et al. Effect of Early Initiation of Mechanical Circulatory Support on Survival in Cardiogenic Shock. American Journal of Cardiology. 2017; 119: 845–851.
[22]
Truby LK, Takeda K, Mauro C, Yuzefpolskaya M, Garan AR, Kirtane AJ, et al. Incidence and Implications of Left Ventricular Distention during Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support. ASAIO Journal. 2017; 63: 257–265.
[23]
Jacobs S, Geens J, Rega F, Burkhoff D, Meyns B. Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices induce left ventricular reverse remodeling. Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. 2013; 32: 466–468.
[24]
Uriel N, Sayer G, Annamalai S, Kapur NK, Burkhoff D. Mechanical Unloading in Heart Failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 72: 569–580.
[25]
Russo JJ, Aleksova N, Pitcher I, Couture E, Parlow S, Faraz M, et al. Left Ventricular Unloading during Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019; 73: 654–662.
[26]
Tongers J, Sieweke J, Kühn C, Napp LC, Flierl U, Röntgen P, et al. Early Escalation of Mechanical Circulatory Support Stabilizes and Potentially Rescues Patients in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation: Heart Failure. 2020; 13: e005853.
[27]
Lim HS. The Effect of Impella CP on Cardiopulmonary Physiology during Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support. Artificial Organs. 2017; 41: 1109–1112.
[28]
Roberts N, Chandrasekaran U, Das S, Qi Z, Corbett S. Hemolysis associated with Impella heart pump positioning: in vitro hemolysis testing and computational fluid dynamics modeling. The International Journal of Artificial Organs. 2020; 43: 710–718.
[29]
Badiye AP, Hernandez GA, Novoa I, Chaparro SV. Incidence of Hemolysis in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Treated with Impella Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device. ASAIO Journal. 2016; 62: 11–14.
[30]
Qian Q, Nath KA, Wu Y, Daoud TM, Sethi S. Hemolysis and Acute Kidney Failure. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2010; 56: 780–784.
[31]
Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning JM, Pappalardo F, et al. Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation. 2019; 139: 1249–1258.
[32]
Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Mortazavi BJ, Hurley NC, Krumholz HM, Curtis JP, et al. Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump with in-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding among Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2020; 323: 734–745.
[33]
Al-Fares AA, Randhawa VK, Englesakis M, McDonald MA, Nagpal AD, Estep JD, et al. Optimal Strategy and Timing of Left Ventricular Venting during Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support for Adults in Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation: Heart Failure. 2019; 12: e006486.
[34]
Stevenson LW, Tillisch JH, Hamilton M, Luu M, Chelimsky-Fallick C, Moriguchi J, et al. Importance of hemodynamic response to therapy in predicting survival with ejection fraction less than or equal to 20% secondary to ischemic or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. The American journal of cardiology. 1990; 66: 1348–1354.
[35]
Morine K, Annamalai S, Jorde L, Razavi A, Pedicini R, Esposito M, et al. TCT-490 Right Atrial Pressure Predicts Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group Registry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 72: B196–B197.
[36]
Kazanegra R, Cheng V, Garcia A, Krishnaswamy P, Gardetto N, Clopton P, et al. A rapid test for B-type natriuretic peptide correlates with falling wedge pressures in patients treated for decompensated heart failure: a pilot study. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 2001; 7: 21–29.
[37]
Johnson W, Omland T, Hall C, Lucas C, Myking OL, Collins C, et al. Neurohormonal activation rapidly decreases after intravenous therapy withdiuretics and vasodilators for class IV heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2002; 39: 1623–1629.
[38]
Falkensammer CB, Heinle JS, Chang AC. Serial Plasma BNP Levels in Assessing Inadequate Left Ventricular Decompression on ECMO. Pediatric Cardiology. 2008; 29: 808–811.
Share
Back to top