Left Ventricular Unloading in Patients on Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy in Cardiogenic Shock: Prophylactic Versus Bail-Out Strategy.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of prophylactic left ventricular (LV) unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in selected patients at risk of developing LV distension remains unclear. METHODS: We enrolled 136 patients treated with Impella pump decompression during VA-ECMO therapy for refractory cardiogenic shock. Patients were stratified by specific indication for LV unloading in the prophylactic vs. bail-out group. The bail-out unloading strategy was utilized to treat LV distension in VA-ECMO afterload-associated complications. The primary endpoint was all-cause 30-day mortality after VA-ECMO implantation. The secondary endpoint was successful myocardial recovery, transition to durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or heart transplantation. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, prophylactic unloading was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality risk (risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.62, and p < 0.001) and a higher probability of myocardial recovery (risk ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.48-4.54, and p = 0.001) compared with the bail-out strategy. Heart transplantation or durable MCS did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic unloading compared with the bail-out strategy may improve clinical outcomes in selected patients on VA-ECMO. Nevertheless, randomized trials are needed to validate these results.

Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal life support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: surgical venting versus Impella device.

OBJECTIVES: Patients in cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may experience severe complications from reduced left ventricular (LV) unloading and increased cardiac afterload. These effects are usually modified by adding a percutaneous direct Impella vent or surgical LV vent on top of VA-ECMO in selected patients. However, direct comparisons between 2 LV unloading strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction are lacking. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of these 2 different approaches. METHODS: We enrolled 112 patients treated with an Impella or surgical LV vent during VA-ECMO support between January 2014 and February 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included rates of myocardial recovery or transition to durable mechanical circulatory support. Additionally, we assessed adverse events such as peripheral ischaemic complications requiring intervention, sepsis and ischaemic stroke. RESULTS: At 30 days, 38 patients in the Impella group (54%) and 26 patients in the surgical LV vent group (63%) had died (relative risk with Impella 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.30; P = 0.35). Impella group and the surgical LV vent group differed significantly with respect to the secondary end points including rates of myocardial recovery (24% and 7%, respectively; P = 0.022) and rates of durable mechanical circulatory support (17% and 42%, P = 0.012). Complication rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Impella device as therapeutic unloading therapy during VA-ECMO did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality compared to surgical LV vent in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.

Addition of levosimendan to overcome acute cardiogenic shock-Paving the way for later heart transplantation-A first case report.

Treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock has poor outcome. Levosimendan addition may help to achieve hemodynamic stabilization and improve conditions to where further treatment options such as listing for heart transplantation may become possible.

Treatment of acute limb ischemia in an Impella CP patient.

The use of the Impella left ventricular assist device is feasible in severe cardiogenic shock. Ischemic complications due to the arterial cannulation may occur. The following case shows how the use of a perfusion adapter for antegrade leg perfusion treats ischemia of the lower extremities.

Fulminant Myocarditis Managed by Extracorporeal Life Support (Impella® CP): A Rare Case.

BACKGROUND: Treating myocarditis can be difficult, as clear criteria for diagnosis and management are lacking for heterogeneous clinical presentations. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report a case of a 49-year-old female who presented with cardiogenic shock and subsequent cardiac arrest. Extracorporeal life support was instituted, and after eight days with Impella CP the patient recovered and at six months presented with normal cardiac function. CONCLUSION: Fulminant myocarditis remains a challenging disease in daily clinical practice, not only for diagnosis, but also for treatment. With this report we emphasize that myocardial failure due to fulminant myocarditis may be reversible if treated with extracorporeal life support, which thus plays an important and life-saving role.

Bilateral antegrade perfusion of the superficial femoral artery to prevent limb ischaemia during combined use of Impella CP left ventricular assist device and extracorporeal life support.

The combined use of extracorporeal cardiac life support and the Impella left ventricular assist device is feasible in severe cardiogenic shock. Ischaemic complications due to the arterial cannulation may occur. The following cases show how the use of a perfusion adapter for bilateral antegrade leg perfusion prevents malperfusion of the lower extremities.