Outcome of Patients Supported by Large Impella Systems After Re-implantation Due to Continued or Recurrent Need of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support
Open Access
- 7 July 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
- Vol. 9, 926389
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory SupportCirculation, 2020
- Use of Tissue Plasminogen Activator Alteplase for Suspected Impella ThrombosisPharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 2019
- Distal Embolic Protection in Impella 5.0 Explantation: Loop and Snare TechniqueThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2019
- Prevalence and Predictors of Vascular Thrombus Formation After Percutaneous Axillary Artery Impella InsertionCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions, 2019
- Management of Anticoagulation with Impella® Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices and Review of New LiteratureJournal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, 2019
- Anticoagulation of a Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Using a Low-Dose Heparin Purge Solution Protocol: A Case SeriesJournal of Pharmacy Practice, 2019
- Bleeding Risks in Patients on Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices Receiving Two Different Dextrose Concentrations of Heparinized Purge Solution: A Case SeriesJournal of Pharmacy Practice, 2018
- Acute Mitral Regurgitation After Removal of an Impella DeviceThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2017
- Perforation of the Anterior Mitral Leaflet After Impella LP 5.0 Therapy in Cardiogenic ShockThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2016
- Acute Mitral Regurgitation: Unforeseen New Complication of the Impella LP 5.0 Ventricular Assist Device and Review of LiteratureHeart, Lung and Circulation, 2014