Timing, positioning and ancillary therapies: the triad for successful Impella RP.

Clear clinical guidelines for the assessment and treatment of right ventricular failure (RVF) remain an unmet need. Although high complexity patients are common in this setting, the ideal management remains uncertain, resulting in high mortality rates despite presumably optimal medical therapy. Timely treatment with Impella RP may offer benefits by supplying circulatory support during the acute RVF phase and providing the time and unloading necessary for native right heart recovery. As such, mastering the technicalities and ancillary therapies is crucial to best utilize this salvage opportunity, particularly in these high complexity patients. Here, we report three different clinical scenarios of medically refractory RVF supported with Impella RP to provide examples and discuss the contribution of mechanical RV support to patient outcomes.

Differences between cardiogenic shock related to acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS: The present analysis from the multicentre prospective Altshock-2 registry aims to better define clinical features, in-hospital course, and management of cardiogenic shock complicating acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) as compared with that complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients with AMI-CS or ADHF-CS enrolled in the Altshock-2 registry between March 2020 and February 2022 were selected. The primary objective was the characterization of ADHF-CS patients as compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital length of stay and mortality were secondary endpoints. One-hundred-ninety of the 238 CS patients enrolled in the aforementioned period were considered for the present analysis: 101 AMI-CS (80% ST-elevated myocardial infarction and 20% non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction) and 89 ADHF-CS. As compared with AMI-CS, ADHF-CS patients were younger [63 (IQR 59-76) vs. 67 (IQR 54-73) years, P = 0.01], but presented with higher creatinine [1.6 (IQR 1.0-2.6) vs. 1.2 (IQR 1.0-1.4) mg/dL, P < 0.001], bilirubin [1.3 (IQR 0.9-2.3) vs. 0.6 (IQR 0.4-1.1) mg/dL, P = 0.01], and central venous pressure values [14 mmHg (IQR 8-12) vs. 10 mmHg (IQR 7-14),P = 0.01]. Norepinephrine was the most common catecholamine used in AMI-CS (79.3%), whereas epinephrine was used more commonly in ADHF-CS (65.5%); 75.8% vs. 46.6% received a temporary mechanical support in AMI-CS and ADHF-CS, respectively (P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was longer in the latter [28 (IQR 13-48) vs. 17 (IQR 9-29) days, P = 0.001]. Heart replacement therapies were more frequently used in the ADHF-CS group (heart transplantation 13.5% vs. 0% and left ventricular assist device 11% vs. 2%, P < 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). In-hospital mortality was 41.1% (38.6% AMI-CS vs. 43.8% ADHF-CS, P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: ADHF-CS is characterized by a higher prevalence of end-organ and biventricular dysfunction at presentation, a longer hospital length of stay, and higher need of heart replacement therapies when compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital mortality was similar between the two aetiologies. Our data warrant development of new management protocols focused on CS aetiology.

Impella 5.0/5.5 Implantation via Innominate Artery: Further Expanding the Opportunities for Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support.

When axillary/subclavian arteries are not suitable because of size or anatomy, alternative access for the Impella pump 5.0/5.5 via the innominate artery allows circulatory support and eventually de-escalation from VA-ECMO to isolated left-side support. Moreover, less invasive surgery without the need to open the pericardium reduces the risk of RV dysfunction and bleeding. Finally, upper body strategies allow early rehabilitation during support, which is associated with improved survival in cardiogenic shock.

Simple Parameters from Complete Blood Count Predict In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is highly heterogenous, ranging from asymptomatic to fatal forms. The identification of clinical and laboratory predictors of poor prognosis may assist clinicians in monitoring strategies and therapeutic decisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively assessed the prognostic value of a simple tool, the complete blood count, on a cohort of 664 patients (F 260; 39%, median age 70 (56-81) years) hospitalized for COVID-19 in Northern Italy. We collected demographic data along with complete blood cell count; moreover, the outcome of the hospital in-stay was recorded. RESULTS: At data cut-off, 221/664 patients (33.3%) had died and 453/664 (66.7%) had been discharged. Red cell distribution width (RDW) (χ 2 10.4; p < 0.001), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NL) ratio (χ 2 7.6; p = 0.006), and platelet count (χ 2 5.39; p = 0.02), along with age (χ 2 87.6; p < 0.001) and gender (χ 2 17.3; p < 0.001), accurately predicted in-hospital mortality. Hemoglobin levels were not associated with mortality. We also identified the best cut-off for mortality prediction: a NL ratio > 4.68 was characterized by an odds ratio for in-hospital mortality (OR) = 3.40 (2.40-4.82), while the OR for a RDW > 13.7% was 4.09 (2.87-5.83); a platelet count > 166,000/µL was, conversely, protective (OR: 0.45 (0.32-0.63)). CONCLUSION: Our findings arise the opportunity of stratifying COVID-19 severity according to simple lab parameters, which may drive clinical decisions about monitoring and treatment.

Fatality rate and predictors of mortality in an Italian cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Clinical features and natural history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ widely among different countries and during different phases of the pandemia. Here, we aimed to evaluate the case fatality rate (CFR) and to identify predictors of mortality in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to three hospitals of Northern Italy between March 1 and April 28, 2020. All these patients had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection by molecular methods. During the study period 504/1697 patients died; thus, overall CFR was 29.7%. We looked for predictors of mortality in a subgroup of 486 patients (239 males, 59%; median age 71 years) for whom sufficient clinical data were available at data cut-off. Among the demographic and clinical variables considered, age, a diagnosis of cancer, obesity and current smoking independently predicted mortality. When laboratory data were added to the model in a further subgroup of patients, age, the diagnosis of cancer, and the baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio were identified as independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, the CFR of hospitalized patients in Northern Italy during the ascending phase of the COVID-19 pandemic approached 30%. The identification of mortality predictors might contribute to better stratification of individual patient risk.