Tailored Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: Case-Based Management Choices.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex, multisystem disorder precipitated by hypoperfusion from cardiac dysfunction. Our current approach to defining and treating CS encompasses all patients under one umbrella regardless of phenotype. This has created challenges for clinical trials and patient care due to the heterogeneity of the CS patient population. The SCAI shock classification has created a universal language for CS that has been rapidly adopted by researchers and clinicians. Its latest iteration established the 3-axis model incorporating shock severity, risk modifiers, and phenotypes. Phenotypes of CS have unique hemodynamic profiles that require nuanced adjustment approaches. Herein we discuss representative cases including acute myocardial infarction, acute on chronic heart failure, fulminant myocarditis, and right ventricular failure. For each phenotype, specific hemodynamic parameters may help confirm appropriate diagnosis as well as direct to therapeutic targets signaling stability and recovery. The underlying pathophysiology of each phenotype can also help predict the extent of stabilization with pharmacologic interventions or the need to escalate to mechanical circulatory support. In conclusion. this tailored approach to CS, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, could help improve outcomes.

Temporary Microaxial Support in a Patient With Multiple Post-Myocardial Infarction Mechanical Complications: Bridge to Transplantation.

A 66-year-old man with post-myocardial infarction ventricular septal rupture, apical aneurysm, and pseudoaneurysm presenting in cardiogenic shock received a surgically placed temporary microaxial transvalvular left ventricular assist device. This stabilized hemodynamics and end-organ function, and he subsequently underwent successful heart transplantation. A temporary microaxial transvalvular left ventricular assist device can effectively bridge patients with select mechanical complications of myocardial infarction beyond ventricular septal rupture.

Trajectories following Impella 5.5 support are associated with initial presentation acuity.

BACKGROUND: Impella 5.5 is a temporary left ventricular assist device utilized to support patients with cardiogenic shock and those undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions. METHODS: From October 2019 to January 2023, 226 patients received Impella 5.5 support at Cleveland Clinic main campus. Patients were stratified by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stages. Immediate post-Impella 5.5 trajectories were compared across groups. Trajectories were defined as mortality on Impella 5.5, transition to advanced heart failure therapies (durable left ventricular assist device/heart transplantation), or survival to Impella 5.5 removal without advanced therapies. RESULTS: Overall, 148 (65%) patients with cardiogenic shock and 78 (35%) undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions received Impella 5.5 support. SCAI stage was A in 63 (28%), B in 10 (4.4%), C in 29 (13%), D in 104 (46%), and E in 20 (8.8%). Mortality on Impella 5.5 was highest in SCAI stage E (A: 3.2%, B: 10%, C: 14%, D: 27%, E: 35%; p < 0.01). Transition to advanced therapies (durable left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) was highest in SCAI stages C-D (A: 1.6%, B: 0.0%, C: 45%, D: 36%, E: 20%; p < 0.01). Survival to Impella removal without advanced therapies was highest in SCAI stages A-B (A: 95%, B: 90%, C: 41%, D: 38%, E: 45%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Stratification by presentation acuity in candidates for Impella 5.5 insertion may help identify which patients may and may not benefit from this escalation of tailored temporary mechanical circulatory support.

Perioperative Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiac Assistance in Thoracic Surgery: A Scoping Review Protocol.

Background and Aims: Over the past decades, the number of cardiac patients (e.g., with advanced heart failure or existing cardiovascular comorbidities that expose them to a heightened risk of acute cardiovascular decompensation) requiring noncardiac surgery is rising. For this patient population, potentially curative surgical treatments may be denied due to their prohibitive perioperative risk. Around 30% of patients undergoing general thoracic surgery experience cardiovascular complications of varying severity that may ultimately result in refractory heart failure and/or hemodynamic instability. In both these scenarios, perioperative implantation of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) may improve patient outcomes by both expanding preoperative surgical eligibility criteria and enabling safer management of unexpected periprocedural complications. This scoping review seeks to summarize the current existing evidence on the role of tMCS for cardiac assistance in thoracic surgery and provide a thorough overview. Methods: We will perform a scoping review adhering to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the extension for Scoping Reviews of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist (PRISMA). We will carry out a comprehensive search of several online databases to identify studies on the perioperative implantation of tMCS in patients undergoing thoracic surgery to provide cardiac assistance either due to their heightened preoperative cardiac risk (pre-emptive tMCS) or for acute cardiac failure due to inherent surgical complications (bail-out tMCS). Standardized forms will be employed to perform data charting and extraction. Results: Retrieved studies will be presented through a narrative synthesis following initial categorization, supplemented by descriptive statistical analyses of quantitative data if adequate inter-study homogeneity is observed and further complemented by figures and tables. Conclusion: The planned scoping review aims to assess the safety and feasibility of perioperative implantation of tMCS in patients undergoing thoracic surgery either to mitigate their heightened cardiovascular risk or as a rescue strategy in the event of life-threatening surgical complications. It will identify knowledge gaps, offer direction for future research, and improve clinical practices within the field.

Hemocompatibility-related Adverse Events in Patients With Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: The Scoring Haemostasis Events and Assessment for Risk (SHEAR) Score.

Evaluation of treatment outcomes in patients supported by temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) currently relies mainly on mortality, which may not sufficiently address other patient benefits or harms. Bleeding and thrombosis are major contributors to mortality. Still, current bleeding scores are not designed for critically ill patients undergoing tMCS, only consider selected populations, and do not account for the high heterogeneity among bleeding and thrombotic adverse events. To improve clinical management, a group of European experts has proposed a revised scoring system based on the MOMENTUM 3 Hemocompatibility Score and the Society of Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)classification of cardiogenic shock. The new system termed the Scoring Haemostasis Events and Assessment for Risk (SHEAR) score, is divided into a baseline characterization stage and four escalating scoring stages encompassing all aspects of clinical relevance. This report summarizes the literature on hemocompatibility-related adverse events associated with tMCS, including bleeding, stroke, vascular access complications, hemolysis, thrombosis, and device failure. The SHEAR score provides a simple and rapid bedside scoring system aiming to provide a univocal tool to increase physician awareness of hemocompatibility complications at baseline and beyond, improve clinical research, and enable the capture of device-related complications that will inform relevant outcomes beyond mortality.

The intra-aortic balloon pump as a rescue device: Do we need to shift our strategy for cardiogenic shock rescue after cardiac surgery?

OBJECTIVE: The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely used to rescue patients from complications following cardiac surgery. Given improvements in rescue strategies over the past decade, the appropriateness of IABP must be reexamined. This study assessed the risk factors, outcomes, and predictors of survival of rescue IABP placement. METHODS: Patients receiving an isolated rescue IABP during or after cardiac surgery from 2012 to 2020 were studied. All adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery except transplantation and primary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) procedures were included. RESULTS: Of 10,591 patients, 397 (3.7%) received a perioperative IABP, including 182 (45.8%) with rescue IABP placement. The indications for rescue IABP were postcardiotomy shock (n = 66; 36.3%), failure to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass (n = 58; 31.9%), myocardial ischemia (n = 30; 16.5%), cardiac arrest (n = 25; 13.7%), and ventricular arrhythmia (n = 3; 1.6%). The in-hospital failure to rescue rate was 17.6% (n = 32 of 182) with a 90-day survival of 80.8% and 1-year survival of 76.9%. The most common etiology of mortality was ongoing cardiogenic shock (61.9%; n = 26 of 42). IABP use for >4 days and cardiac arrest as an indication for IABP were risk factors for 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.68 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.31-5.50] and 2.69 [95% CI, 1.11-6.54], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rescue IABP following cardiac surgery is associated with increased early and 1-year mortality. Prolonged IABP use beyond 4 days or cardiac arrest as an indication portended a significantly worse prognosis. Rescue IABP may not be the optimal first-line temporary MCS for all patients, as the level of support provided might not match the severity of cardiogenic shock. Alternative MCS strategies should be considered early.

Cardiogenic shock severity predicts bleeding events in patients with temporary mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: Data on shock severity and bleeding events in patients with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) are limited. We investigated the relationship between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stage classification and bleeding events in patients with tMCS. METHODS: We evaluated the data of 285 consecutive patients with tMCS who were admitted to our institution between June 2019 and May 2022. At the time of tMCS initiation, 81 patients (28.4%) were in SCAI stage A, 38 (13.3%) in stage B, 69 (24.2%) in stage C, 33 (11.6%) in stage D, and 64 (22.5%) in stage E. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to assess the association between the SCAI shock stage and in-hospital bleeding events. RESULTS: In-hospital bleeding occurred in 100 patients (35.1%). The bleeding event rate increased incrementally across the SCAI shock stages (stage A, 11.1%; stage B, 15.8%; stage C, 37.7%; stage D, 54.6%; stage E, 64.1%). In-hospital bleeding was associated with the SCAI shock stage (p < 0.001). Compared with stage A, the adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital bleeding were 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-4.66), 6.47 (95% CI 2.61-10.66), 11.59 (95% CI 3.77-35.64), and 7.85 (95% CI 2.51-24.55) for stages B, C, D, and E, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SCAI shock stage predicted subsequent bleeding events in patients with tMCS. This simple scheme may be useful for tailored risk-based clinical assessment and management of patients with tMCS.

Racial, Ethnic, Socioeconomic, and Geographic Inequities in Access to Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Background: Hospital admissions for cardiogenic shock have increased in the United States. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) can be used to acutely stabilize patients. We sought to evaluate the presence of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in access to MCS in the United States among patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods: Medicare data were used to identify patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to hospitals with advanced tMCS (microaxial left ventricular assist device [mLVAD] or extracorporeal membranous oxygenation [ECMO]) capabilities within the 25 largest core-based statistical areas, all major metropolitan areas. We modeled the association between patient race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and use of mLVAD or ECMO. Results: After adjusting for age and clinical comorbidities, dual eligibility for Medicaid was associated with a 19.9% (95% CI, 11.5%-27.4%) decrease in odds of receiving mLVAD in a patient with cardiogenic shock (P < .001). After adjusting for age, clinical comorbidities, and dual eligibility for Medicaid, Black race was associated with 36.7% (95% CI, 28.4%-44.2%) lower odds of receiving mLVAD in a patient with cardiogenic shock. Dual eligibility for Medicaid was associated with a 62.0% (95% CI, 60.8%-63.1%) decrease in odds of receiving ECMO in a patient with cardiogenic shock (P < .001). Black race was associated with 36.0% (95% CI, 16.6%-50.9%) lower odds of receiving ECMO in a patient with cardiogenic shock, after adjusting for Medicaid eligibility. Conclusions: We identified large and significant racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic inequities in access to mLVAD and ECMO among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock to metropolitan hospitals with active advanced tMCS programs. These findings highlight systematic inequities in access to potentially lifesaving therapies.

Guide to Temporary Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock: Choosing Wisely.

Cardiogenic shock is a multisystem pathology that carries a high mortality rate, and initial pharmacotherapies include the use of vasopressors and inotropes. These agents can increase myocardial oxygen consumption and decrease tissue perfusion that can oftentimes result in a state of refractory cardiogenic shock for which temporary mechanical circulatory support can be considered. Numerous support devices are available, each with its own hemodynamic blueprint. Defining a patient's hemodynamic profile and understanding the phenotype of cardiogenic shock is important in device selection. Careful patient selection incorporating a multidisciplinary team approach should be utilized.

Single center outcomes after temporary mechanical circulatory assist device prior to Heartmate 3 implantation - a retrospective cohort study.

Objectives. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) has become a component in the therapeutic strategy for treatment of cardiogenic shock as a bridge-to-decision. TMCS can facilitate recovery of cardiopulmonary function, end-organ function, and potentially reduce the surgical risk of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Despite the improvements of hemodynamics and end-organ function, post-LVAD operative morbidity might be increased in these high-risk patients. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes after Heartmate 3 (HM3) implantation in patients with and without TMCS prior to HM3 implant. Methods. In this retrospective cohort study of all HM3 patients in the period between November 2015 and October 2021, patients with and without prior TMCS were compared. Patients' demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, laboratory tests, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and adverse events were collected from patient records. Results. The TMCS group showed an improvement in hemodynamics prior to LVAD implantation. Median TMCS duration was 19.5 (14-26) days. However, the TMCS group were more coagulopathic, had more wound infections, neurological complications, and more patients were on dialysis compared with patient without TMCS prior to HM3 implantation. Survival four years after HM3 implantation was 80 and 82% in the TMCS (N = 22) and non-TMCS group (N = 41), respectively. Conclusion. Patients on TMCS had an acceptable short and long-term survival and comparable to patients receiving HM3 without prior TMCS. However, they had a more complicated postoperative course.

Physical preconditioning on biventricular temporary mechanical circulatory support while awaiting heart transplantation.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) is increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock as a bridge to further treatment. We present the case of a 52-year-old female patient with biventricular heart failure who was bridged to heart transplantation employing biventricular tMCS through a non-femoral access. The 'groin-free' tMCS concept facilitates pre-habilitation while awaiting heart transplantation.

Clinical outcomes among cardiogenic shock patients supported with high-capacity Impella axial flow pumps: A report from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group.

BACKGROUND: The Impella 5.0 and 5.5 pumps (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) are large-bore transvalvular micro-axial assist devices used in cardiogenic shock (CS) for patients requiring high-capacity flow. Despite their increasing use, real-world data regarding indications, rates of utilization and clinical outcomes with this therapy are limited. The objective of our study was to examine clinical profiles and outcomes of patients in a contemporary, real-world CS registry of patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 alone or in combination with other temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices. METHODS: The CS Working Group (CSWG) Registry includes patients from 34 US hospitals. For this analysis, data from patients who received an Impella 5.0/5.5 between 2020-2023 were analyzed. Use of Impella 5.0/5.5 with or without additional tMCS therapies, duration of support, adverse events and outcomes at hospital discharge were studied. Adverse events including stroke, limb ischemia, bleeding and hemolysis were not standardized by the registry but reported per individual CSWG Primary Investigator discretion. For those who survived, rates of native heart recovery (NHR) or heart replacement therapy (HRT) including heart transplant (HT), or durable ventricular assist device (VAD) were recorded. We also assessed outcomes based on shock etiology (acute myocardial infarction or MI-CS vs. heart failure-related CS or HF-CS). RESULTS: Among 6,205 patients, 754 received an Impella 5.0/5.5 (12.1%), including 210 MI-CS (27.8%) and 484 HF-CS (64.1%) patients. Impella 5.0/5.5 was used as the sole tMCS device in 32% of patients, while 68% of patients received a combination of tMCS devices. Impella cannulation sites were available for 524/754 (69.4%) of patients, with 93.5% axillary configuration. Survival to hospital discharge for those supported with an Impella 5.0/5.5 was 67%, with 20.4% NHR and 45.5% HRT. Compared to HF-CS, patients with MI-CS supported on Impella 5.0/5.5 had higher in-hospital mortality (45.2% vs 26.2%, p < 0.001) and were less likely to receive HRT (22.4% vs 56.6%, p < 0.001. For patients receiving a combination of tMCS during hospitalization, this was associated with higher rates of limb ischemia (9% vs. 3%, p < 0.01), bleeding (52% vs 33%, p < 0.01), and mortality (38% vs 25%; p < 0.001) compared to Impella 5.0/5.5 alone. Among Impella 5.0/5.5 recipients, the median duration of pump support was 12.9 days (IQR: 6.8-22.9) and longer in patients bridged to HRT (14 days; IQR: 7.7-28.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center cohort of patients with CS, use of Impella 5.0/5.5 was associated with an overall survival of 67.1% and high rates of HRT. Lower adverse event rates were observed when Impella 5.0/5.5 was the sole support device used. Further study is required to determine whether a strategy of early Impella 5.0/5.5 use for CS improves survival. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: High capacity Impella heart pumps are capable of provide up to 5.5 liter/min of flow while upper body surgical placement allows for ambulation. Patients with advanced cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction or heart failure requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support may benefit from upfront use of Impella 5.5 to improve overall survival, including native heart recovery or successful bridge to durable left ventricular assist device surgery or heart transplantation.

The intelligent Impella: Future perspectives of artificial intelligence in the setting of Impella support.

AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential useful tool to support clinical treatment of heart failure, including the setting of mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Modern Impella pumps are equipped with advanced technology (SmartAssist), enabling real-time acquisition and display of data related to both pump performance and the patient's haemodynamic status. These data emerge as an 'ideal' source for data-driven AI applications to predict the clinical course of an ongoing therapeutic protocol. Yet, no evidence of effective application of AI tools in the setting of Impella support is available. On this background, we aimed at identifying possible future applications of AI-based tools in the setting of temporary MCS with an Impella device. METHODS: We explored the state of research and development at the intersection of AI and Impella support and derived future potential applications of AI in routine Impella clinical management. RESULTS: We identified different areas where the future implementation of AI tools may contribute to addressing important clinical challenges in the setting of Impella support, including (i) early identification of the best suited pathway of care according to patients' conditions at presentation and intention to treat, (ii) prediction of therapy outcomes according to different possible therapeutic actions, (iii) optimization of device implantation procedures and evaluation of proper pump position over the whole course of support and (iv) prevention and/or rationale management of haemocompatibility-related adverse events. For each of those areas, we discuss the potential advantages, challenges and implications of harnessing AI-driven insights in the setting of MCS with an Impella device. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary MCS with an Impella device has great potential to benefit from the integration of AI-based tools. Such tools may indeed translate into groundbreaking innovation supporting clinical decision-making and therapy regulation, in particular in complex scenarios such as the multidevice MCS strategy.

Bridge-to-transplant temporary mechanical circulatory support and risk of allosensitization.

INTRODUCTION: Since the 2018 change in the US adult heart allocation policy, more patients are bridged-to-transplant on temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Previous studies indicate that durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) may lead to allosensitization. The goal of this study was to assess whether tMCS implantation is associated with changes in sensitization. METHODS: We included patients evaluated for heart transplants between 2015 and 2022 who had alloantibody measured before and after MCS implantation. Allosensitization was defined as development of new alloantibodies after tMCS implant. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients received tMCS before transplant. Nine (22.0%) patients developed alloantibodies following tMCS implantation: 3 (12.0%) in the intra-aortic balloon pump group (n = 25), 2 (28.6%) in the microaxial percutaneous LVAD group (n = 7), and 4 (44.4%) in the veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation group (n = 9)-p = .039. Sensitized patients were younger (44.7 ± 11.6 years vs. 54.3 ± 12.5 years, p = .044), were more likely to be sensitized at baseline - 3 of 9 (33.3%) compared to 2 out of 32 (6.3%) (p = .028) and received more transfusions with red blood cells (6 (66.6%) vs. 8 (25%), p = .02) and platelets (6 (66.6%) vs. 5 (15.6%), p = .002). There was no significant difference in tMCS median duration of support (4 [3,15] days vs. 8.5 [5,14.5] days, p = .57). Importantly, out of the 11 patients who received a durable LVAD after tMCS, 5 (45.5%) became sensitized, compared to 4 out of 30 patients (13.3%) who only had tMCS-p = .028. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that patients bridged-to-transplant with tMCS, without significant blood product transfusions and a subsequent durable LVAD implant, have a low risk of allosensitization. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and determine whether risk of sensitization varies by type of tMCS and duration of support.

Left Ventricular Unloading in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Clinical Perspective Derived from Basic Cardiovascular Physiology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To present an abridged overview of the literature and pathophysiological background of adjunct interventional left ventricular unloading strategies during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO). From a clinical perspective, the mechanistic complexity of such combined mechanical circulatory support often requires in-depth physiological reasoning at the bedside, which remains a cornerstone of daily practice for optimal patient-specific V-A ECMO care. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent conventional clinical trials have not convincingly shown the superiority of V-A ECMO in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock as compared with medical therapy alone. Though, it has repeatedly been reported that the addition of interventional left ventricular unloading to V-A ECMO may improve clinical outcome. Novel approaches such as registry-based adaptive platform trials and computational physiological modeling are now introduced to inform clinicians by aiming to better account for patient-specific variation and complexity inherent to V-A ECMO and have raised a widespread interest. To provide modern high-quality V-A ECMO care, it remains essential to understand the patient's pathophysiology and the intricate interaction of an individual patient with extracorporeal circulatory support devices. Innovative clinical trial design and computational modeling approaches carry great potential towards advanced clinical decision support in ECMO and related critical care.

The physiology of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - A comprehensive clinical perspective.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) has become a standard of care for severe cardiogenic shock, refractory cardiac arrest and related impending multiorgan failure. The widespread clinical use of this complex temporary circulatory support modality is still contrasted by a lack of formal scientific evidence in the current literature. This might at least in part be attributable to VA ECMO related complications, which may significantly impact on clinical outcome. In order to limit adverse effects of VA ECMO as much as possible an indepth understanding of the complex physiology during extracorporeally supported cardiogenic shock states is critically important. This review covers all relevant physiological aspects of VA ECMO interacting with the human body in detail. This, to provide a solid basis for health care professionals involved in the daily management of patients supported with VA ECMO and suffering from cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest and impending multiorgan failure for the best possible care.

Special Considerations for Advanced Heart Failure Surgeries: Durable Left Ventricular Devices and Heart Transplantation.

Heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) represent two definitive therapies for end-stage heart failure in the modern era. Despite technological advances, both treatment modalities continue to experience unique risks that impact surgical and perioperative decision-making. Here, we review special populations and factors that impact risk in LVAD and heart transplant surgery and examine critical decisions in the management of these patients. As both heart transplantation and the use of durable LVADs as destination therapy continue to increase, these considerations will be of increasing relevance in managing advanced heart failure and improving outcomes.

Multidisciplinary approach to long-standing left bundle branch block with dyssynchrony and aortic stenosis: case report.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recommended for patients with symptomatic heart failure in sinus rhythm with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%, QRS duration ≥ 150 ms, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology. However, when severe left ventricular dysfunction and cardiogenic shock are present, treatment paradigms are often limited to palliative medical therapy or advanced therapies with durable left ventricular assist device or heart transplant as the functional and survival benefit of CRT in these patients remains uncertain. Case summary: A 77-year-old white man with long-standing LBBB with dyssynchrony, severely reduced LVEF of 4%, and severe bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS) presented with worsening heart failure symptoms. After multidisciplinary heart team evaluation and pre-operative optimization, the patient underwent a surgical aortic valve replacement with simultaneous intraoperative initiation of CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P) and temporary mechanical circulatory support. Echocardiography at 44 days and 201 days post-discharge showed an LVEF of 29% and 40%, respectively. Discussion: This case demonstrates that reverse remodelling and native heart recovery were successfully achieved in a patient with advanced structural heart disease, presenting with cardiogenic shock, through an early and aggressive approach involving multidisciplinary heart team evaluation, treatment of severe AS with surgical aortic valve replacement, prophylactic intraoperative initiation of temporary mechanical circulatory support, and early initiation of CRT-P.

What the pediatric nurse needs to know about the Impella cardiac assist device.

Background: Cardiogenic shock in children still carries a high mortality risk despite advances in medical therapy. The use of temporary mechanical circulatory supports is an accepted strategy to bridge patients with acute heart failure to recovery, decision, transplantation or destination therapy. These devices are however limited in children and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains the most commonly used device. Veno-arterial ECMO may provide adequate oxygen delivery, but it does not significantly unload the left ventricle, and this may prevent recovery. To improve the likelihood of left ventricular recovery and minimize the invasiveness of mechanical support, the Impella axial pump has been increasingly used in children with acute heart failure in the last decade. Purpose: There are still limited data describing the Impella indications, management and outcomes in children, therefore, we aimed to provide a comprehensive narrative review useful for the pediatric nurses to be adequately trained and acquire specific competencies in Impella management.