Impact of Left Ventricular Unloading on Outcome of Heart Transplant Bridging With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support in New Allocation Policy.

BACKGROUND: The new heart allocation policy places veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO)-supported heart transplant (HT) candidates at the highest priority status. Despite increasing evidence supporting left ventricular (LV) unloading during VA-ECMO, the effect of LV unloading on transplant outcomes following bridging to HT with VA-ECMO remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: From October 18, 2018 to March 21, 2023, 624 patients on VA-ECMO at the time of HT were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing database and were divided into 2 groups: VA-ECMO alone (N=384) versus VA-ECMO with LV unloading (N=240). Subanalysis was performed in the LV unloading group: Impella (N=106) versus intra-aortic balloon pump (N=134). Recipient age was younger in the VA-ECMO alone group (48 versus 53 years, P=0.018), as was donor age (VA-ECMO alone, 29 years versus LV unloading, 32 years, P=0.041). One-year survival was comparable between groups (VA-ECMO alone, 88.0±1.8% versus LV unloading, 90.4±2.1%; P=0.92). Multivariable Cox hazard model showed LV unloading was not associated with posttransplant mortality after HT (hazard ratio, 0.92; P=0.70). Different LV unloading methods had similar 1-year survival (intra-aortic balloon pump, 89.2±3.0% versus Impella, 92.4±2.8%; P=0.65). Posttransplant survival was comparable between different Impella versions (Impella 2.5, versus Impella CP, versus Impella 5.0, versus Impella 5.5). CONCLUSIONS: Under the current allocation policy, LV unloading did not impact waitlist outcome and posttransplant survival in patients bridged to HT with VA-ECMO, nor did mode of LV unloading. This highlights the importance of a tailored approach in HT candidates on VA-ECMO, where routine LV unloading may not be universally necessary.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: Uses in the Emergency Setting.

Cardiogenic shock is a lethal condition with significant morbidity, characterized by myocardial insults leading to low cardiac output and ensuing systemic hypoperfusion. While mortality rates remain high, we have improved upon our recognition and definition of cardiogenic shock, now with an emphasis on defining stages of shock to help guide effective treatment strategies with either pharmacologic or mechanical circulatory support. In this review, the authors summarize these stages as well as discuss indications, function, selection, and troubleshooting of the various temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.

The Effects of Exercise on Cardiogenic Shock with an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: A Case Report. / Efeitos do Exercício em Choque Cardiogênico e Balão Intra-Aórtico: Um Relato de Caso.

This case report describes the exercise program on a hospitalized 54-year-old male patient with cardiogenic shock waiting for a heart transplant assisted by an intra-aortic balloon pump, a temporary mechanical circulatory support device. The temporary mechanical circulatory support device, an intra-aortic balloon pump, was placed in the left subclavian artery, enabling the exercise protocol. Measurements and values from Swan-Ganz catheter, blood sample, brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), as well as the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) were obtained before and after an exercise protocol. The exercise training protocol involved the use of an unloaded bed cycle ergometer once a day, for a maximum of 30 minutes, to the tolerance limit. No adverse events or events related to the dislocation of the intra-aortic balloon pump were observed during the exercise protocol. The exercise program resulted in higher SvO2 levels, with an increased 6MWT with lower Borg dyspnea scores (312 meters vs. 488 meters and five points vs. three points, respectively). After completing the ten-day exercise protocol, the patient underwent a non-complicated heart transplant surgery and a full recovery in the ICU. This study showed that exercise is a feasible option for patients with cardiogenic shock who are using an intra-aortic balloon pump and that it is well-tolerated with no reported adverse events.

O presente relato de caso descreve o programa de exercícios aplicado a um paciente do sexo masculino, de 54 anos, internado com choque cardiogênico, aguardando transplante cardíaco e assistido por balão intra-aórtico, um dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário. O dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário, um balão intra-aórtico, foi colocado na artéria subclávia esquerda, possibilitando o protocolo de exercícios. Antes e após um protocolo de exercícios, foram obtidos dados a partir de cateter de Swan-Ganz, amostra de sangue, peptídeo natriurético cerebral (NT-proBNP), proteína C reativa de alta sensibilidade (PCR-as), teste de caminhada de seis minutos (TC6min) e medição da saturação venosa de oxigênio (SvO2). O protocolo de treinamento físico envolveu a utilização de um cicloergômetro adaptado ao leito, sem carga, uma vez ao dia, por no máximo 30 minutos, até o limite da tolerância. Não foram observados eventos adversos tampouco relacionados ao deslocamento do balão intra-aórtico durante o protocolo de exercícios. O programa de exercícios resultou em maior SvO2 com aumento do TC6min e menores escores de dispneia de Borg (312 metros vs. 488 metros e cinco pontos vs. três pontos, respectivamente). Após completar o protocolo de exercícios de dez dias, o paciente foi submetido a uma cirurgia de transplante cardíaco sem complicações e recuperação total na UTI. O presente estudo demonstrou que o exercício é uma opção viável para pacientes com choque cardiogênico em uso de balão intra-aórtico e que é bem tolerado, além de não haver relatos de eventos adversos.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will focus on the indications of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and then analyze in detail all MCS devices available to the operator, evaluating their mechanisms of action, pros and cons, contraindications, and clinical data supporting their use. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the last decade, the interventional cardiology arena has witnessed an increase in the complexity profile of the patients and lesions treated in the catheterization laboratory. Patients with significant comorbidity burden, left ventricular dysfunction, impaired hemodynamics, and/or complex coronary anatomy often cannot tolerate extensive percutaneous revascularization. Therefore, a variety of MCS devices have been developed and adopted for high-risk PCI. Despite the variety of MCS available to date, a detailed characterization of the patient requiring MCS is still lacking. A precise selection of patients who can benefit from MCS support during high-risk PCI and the choice of the most appropriate MCS device in each case are imperative to provide extensive revascularization and improve patient outcomes. Several new devices are being tested in early feasibility studies and randomized clinical trials and the experience gained in this context will allow us to provide precise answers to these questions in the coming years.

Outcomes in Heart Transplant Recipients by Bridge to Transplant Strategy When Using the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System.

The last several years have seen a rise in use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to bridge heart transplant recipients. A controlled hypothermic organ preservation system, the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS), was introduced in 2018 and has grown in utilization with reports of improved posttransplant outcomes. The Global Utilization And Registry Database for Improved heArt preservatioN (GUARDIAN)-Heart registry is an international, multicenter registry assessing outcomes after transplant using the SCTS. This analysis examines outcomes in recipients bridged with various MCS devices in the GUARDIAN-Heart Registry. A total of 422 recipients with donor hearts transported using SCTS were included and identified. Durable ventricular assist devices (VADs) were used exclusively in 179 recipients, temporary VADs or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in 197, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in 14 recipients. Average ischemic times were over 3.5 hours in all cohorts. Severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) posttransplant increased across groups (4.5% VAD, 5.1% temporary support, 21.4% ECMO), whereas intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (18.2 days) and total hospital stay (39.4 days) was longer in the ECMO cohort than the VAD and IABP groups. A comparison of outcomes of MCS bridging in SCTS versus traditional ice revealed significantly lower rates of both moderate/severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and severe PGD in the SCTS cohort; however, upon propensity matching only the reductions in moderate/severe RV dysfunction were statistically significant. Use of SCTS in transplant recipients with various bridging strategies results in excellent outcomes.

Mechanical Circulatory Support During Surgical Revascularization for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe the use of perioperative mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and its impact on outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who were undergoing surgical revascularization. METHODS: Patients with an ejection fraction <35% who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) from 2015 to 2021 were identified (N = 378). Patients were divided into no MCS, preoperative MCS, and postoperative MCS groups on the basis of timing of MCS initiation, which included intraaortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or Impella device (Abiomed) use. The primary outcome of interest was operative mortality. RESULTS: The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 2.4%. Sixty-six percent (n = 246) of patients had a previous myocardial infarction, and 61.8% of these patients were within 21 days of CABG. Twenty-one patients (5.6%) presented in cardiogenic shock. The preoperative MCS cohort consisted of 31 patients (8.2%) who underwent CABG a median of 2 days after MCS initiation. Thirty (7.9%) patients required postoperative MCS. Independent risk factors for requiring postoperative MCS included the preoperative ejection fraction (odds ratio, 0.93; P = .01 and the presence of preoperative MCS (odds ratio, 3.06; P = .02). Overall, operative mortality was 3.4%, and 3-year survival was 87.0%. Operative mortality in patients who did and did not receive preoperative MCS was 7.7% and 2.9% (P = .12) with no difference in long-term survival (P = .80), whereas patients requiring postoperative MCS had significantly increased operative (16.7%) and late mortality (63%; P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: CABG can be performed safely in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy with selective use of perioperative MCS. Despite advanced disease severity, patients requiring preoperative MCS demonstrate acceptable short- and long-term survival. Patients requiring postoperative MCS have increased postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Impact of Age, Gender, and Body Mass Index on Short-Term Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock on Mechanical Circulatory Support.

This single-center, observational study assessed the impact of age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) on temporary mechanical circulatory support. All adult patients admitted to the Cleveland Clinic main campus Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) between December 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, CICU with CS necessitating mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, or venous arterial-extra corporeal membrane oxygenation were retrospectively analyzed for this study. Baseline characteristics and 30-day outcomes were collected through physician-directed chart review. The impact of age, gender, and BMI on 30-day mortality was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze the survival difference in specific subsets. A total of 393 patients with CS on temporary MCS were admitted to our CICU during the study period. The median age of our cohort was 63 years (interquartile range 54 to 70 years), median BMI was 28.50 kg/m2 (interquartile range 24.62 to 29.72) and 70% (n = 276) were men. In total, 22 patients >80 years had received MCS compared with 372 patients <80 years. Patients >80 years on MCS had significantly higher 30-day mortality compared with those <80 years (81.8% vs 49.3%, p = 0.006). Upon stratifying patients by BMI, 161 (41%) patients were found to have BMI ≥30 kg/m2 whereas 232 (59%) patients had BMI <30 kg/m2. Comparison of 30-day mortality revealed that patients with BMI ≥30 did significantly worse than patients with BMI <30 (59.6% vs 45.3%, p = 0.007). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between men and women. On multivariable logistic regression, both age and BMI had a positive linear relation with adjusted 30-day mortality whereas gender did not have a major effect. Advanced age and higher BMI are independently associated with worse outcomes in patients with CS on MCS. Utilizing a strict selection criterion for patients in CS is pertinent to derive the maximum benefit from advanced mechanical support.

Blood perfusion status is important in the prognosis of ventricular aneurysm complicated by ventricular septal rupture.

AIMS: Due to its low incidence, poor prognosis, and high mortality in the acute phase, the long-term prognosis of the left ventricular aneurysm (LVA) complicated by ventricular septal rupture (VSR) has received little attention. This study focus on the long-term prognosis of patients with LVA complicated by relatively stable VSR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over a decade of retrospection, 68 patients with both LVA and VSR were compared with 136 patients with LVA alone after propensity score matching. Patients with both LVA and VSR were further divided into two groups depending on whether pre-operative intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was used (23 pre-operative IABP vs. 45 non-pre-operative IABP). The primary endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, a composite endpoint including mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, and heart failure. Patients with both LVA and VSR were generally in a worse condition upon admission compared with those with LVA alone [percentage of patients in New York Heart Association IV: 42.6% (29/68) vs. 11.0% (15/136), P < 0.001]. Both pre-operative and post-operative IABP use rates were significantly higher in patients with both LVA and VSR than in patients with LVA alone [pre-operative IABP use rates: 33.8% (23/68) vs. 0.74% (1/136), P < 0.001 and post-operative IABP use rates: 33.8% (23/68) vs. 10.3% (14/136), P < 0.001]. No significant difference was observed in the primary endpoint between patients with both LVA and VSR and those with LVA alone (log-rank test, P = 0.63, median follow-up time 63 months). We further investigated the effect of pre-operative IABP on the long-term prognosis of patients with both LVA and VSR. Patients who applied pre-operative IABP had a worse long-term prognosis than those who did not (log-rank test, P = 0.0011). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term prognosis of LVA combined with VSR was not inferior than LVA alone after surgery, but poor blood perfusion status was associated with a worse prognosis.

Ambulatory trans-femoral intra-aortic balloon pump.

A 53-year-old man with inotrope-dependent advanced heart failure was admitted with acute decompensation and underwent urgent listing for heart transplant.

Microaxial mechanical circulatory support after orthotopic heart transplantation.

AIM: Use of microaxial mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been reported for severe graft rejection or dysfunction after heart transplantation (HTx). We aimed to assess utilization patterns of microaxial MCS after HTx in adolescents (ages 18 and younger) and adults (ages 19 and older). METHODS: Electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies on post-HTx use of microaxial support in adults and adolescents. A total of 18 studies were selected and patient-level data were extracted for statistical analysis. RESULTS: All patients (n=23), including adults (n=15) and adolescents (n=8), underwent Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) microaxial MCS after HTx. Median age was 36 [IQR 18-56] years (Adults, 52 [37-59]; adolescents, 16 [15-17]). Primary right ventricular graft dysfunction was an indication exclusively seen in the adults 40% (6/15), while acute graft rejection was present in 46.7% (7/15) of adults. Median time after transplant was 9 [0-32] months (Adults, 4 [0-32]; adolescents, 11 [4.5, 45]). Duration of Impella support was comparable between adults and adolescents (5 [2.5-8] vs 6 [5-8] days, p = 0.38). Overall improvement was observed both in median LV ejection fraction (23.5% [11.3-28] to 42% [37.8-47.3], p < 0.01) and cardiac index (1.8 [1.2-2.6] to 3 [2.5-3.1], p < 0.01). Retransplantation was required in four adolescents (50%, 4/8). Survival to discharge was achieved by 60.0% (9/15) of adults and 87.5% (7/8) of adolescents respectively (p = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Indications for microaxial MCS appear to vary between adult and adolescent patients. Overall improvement in LVEF and cardiac index was observed, however, with suboptimal survival to discharge.

Single arterial access technique for simultaneous dual mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support is a treatment of choice for patients in severe cardiogenic shock. Combining veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with devices that enable left ventricular unloading emerges as a promising strategy to diminish detrimental effect of elevated left ventricular afterload and to improve survival. However, the need to establish multiple arterial access sites remains a major drawback of this approach due to a significant rate of vascular complications. We describe herein a case of a single arterial access for ECLS and intra-aortic balloon pump using axillary artery that may provide a simple, modular and flexible approach for escalation or de-escalation of mechanical circulatory support.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P-trend<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.