Clinical outcomes of the post-closure technique for arteriotomy closure with the Impella cardiac power percutaneous left ventricular assist device.

With the increasing utilization of endovascular mechanical circulatory support devices, such as the Impella CP (Abiomed), there is a need for standardized guidelines for its safe removal. Development of the Perclose post-closure technique was facilitated by the introduction of a new Impella repositioning sheath in 2019, which enabled re-access to the sidearm and stylet, rewiring of the access artery, and Impella sheath removal. Our retrospective single-center study included all patients undergoing Perclose post-closure technique for vascular access closure after Impella removal between 2018 and 2024. Forty-six patients, with a mean age of 63.8 years, predominantly male (82.6%), were included in the analysis. Indications for Impella placement included complex percutaneous coronary intervention (34.8%) and cardiogenic shock (CS) (heart failure-CS: 32.6%, myocardial infarction-CS: 21.7%). Clinically relevant complications were encountered in less than 5% of cases. No instances of covered stent placement, fasciotomy, amputation, or access site infections were reported. Our study underscores the safety of the Perclose post-closure technique following Impella removal in a diverse cohort of patients, with an overall clinically significant complication rate of less than 5%. The Perclose post-closure technique is a reliable and well-tolerated method for vascular access closure in patients undergoing Impella support.

Comparison of Mixed Venous Oxygen Saturation and Premembranous Venous Oxygen Saturation in Patients on Peripheral Venous-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

In patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) premembranous venous oxygen saturation (Spm-vO2) is continuously displayed on the ECMO console. However, the concordance between Spm-vO2 and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) remains largely unexplored. Our single-center retrospective study included adult patients who had paired SvO2 and Spm-vO2 readings within 15 minutes of each other, on peripherally cannulated Vf ivc-A ECMO and a pulmonary artery using catheter (PAC). The 82 pairs of observations showed a mean difference of 11.37% (95% limits of agreement -6.0 to 28.74, p < 0.001) between Spm-vO2 and SvO2. Although the two values correlated with each other (r = 0.51, p < 0.01), the difference between the paired measurements was larger at lower values of SvO2 (3.72 ± 6.38% when SvO2 >80%, 11.79±7.46% when SvO2 between 60% and 80%, and 18.81±12.09% when SvO2 <60%). The equation SvO2 = 1.2* Spm-vO2 - 28.03 was obtained by Passing Bablok regression. Cardiac index calculated by Spm-vO2 and SvO2 differed by 0.8L/minute/m2 (95% limits of agreement -0.52 to 2.17, p < 0.001). In peripheral VA-ECMO, Spm-vO2 is consistently higher than SvO2, with more discordance at lower saturation levels. Using Spm-vO2 to estimate cardiac output using Fick method yields inaccurate results.

Mechanical Preload Reduction: Harnessing a Cornerstone of Heart Failure Management to Improve Clinical Outcomes.

Decongestion is a cornerstone therapeutic goal for those presenting with decompensated heart failure. Current approaches to clinical decongestion include reducing cardiac preload, which is typically limited to diuretics and hemofiltration. Several new technologies designed to mechanically reduce cardiac preload are in development. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology of decompensated heart failure; the central role of targeting cardiac preload; emerging mechanical preload reduction technologies; and potential application of these devices.

Pragmatic approach to temporary mechanical circulatory support in acute right ventricular failure.

Acute right ventricular failure (RVF) is prevalent in multiple disease states and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Right-sided temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices are used to unload RV congestion and increase cardiac output in cardiogenic shock (CS) with hemodynamically significant RVF. Several RV-tMCS device platforms are available; however consensus is lacking on patient selection, timing of escalation to RV-tMCS, device management, and device weaning. The purposes of this review are to 1) describe the current state of tMCS device therapies for acute RVF with CS, 2) discuss principles of escalation to RV-tMCS device therapy, 3) examine important aspects of clinical management for patients supported by RV-tMCS devices including volume management, anticoagulation, and positive pressure ventilation, and 4) provide a framework for RV-tMCS weaning.