Weaning from Impella and mobilization of Impella patients.

Weaning of patients from Impella is complex and includes evaluation of the underlying disease, which is essential for estimating the potential for heart recovery. Monitoring during the weaning phase with echocardiography and pulmonary artery catheters will be discussed, as well as the use of intravenous and oral heart failure drugs. Patients who are candidates for weaning must be stable, without inotropes, and must have recovered from acute end-organ damage. Coronary artery disease and valvular heart diseases should be appropriately addressed before weaning to take the maximum advantage of haemodynamic stability provided by the support and to maximize the possibility of weaning. Tips and tricks for the mobilization of Impella patients will also be discussed.

Clinical presentation, shock severity and mortality in patients with de novo versus acute-on-chronic heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of CS cases. Whether patients with de novo HF and those with acute-on-chronic HF in CS differ in clinical characteristics and outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical presentation and mortality between patients with de novo and acute-on-chronic HF-CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS from 16 tertiary care centres in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. To investigate differences in clinical presentation and 30-day mortality, adjusted logistic/Cox regression models were fitted. Patients (n = 1030) with HF-CS were analysed, of whom 486 (47.2%) presented with de novo HF-CS and 544 (52.8%) with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Traditional markers of CS severity (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate and lactate) as well as use of treatments were comparable between groups. However, patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS were more likely to have a higher CS severity and also a higher mortality risk, after adjusting for relevant confounders (de novo HF 45.5%, acute-on-chronic HF 55.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In this large HF-CS cohort, acute-on-chronic HF-CS was associated with more severe CS and higher mortality risk compared to de novo HF-CS, although traditional markers of CS severity and use of treatments were comparable. These findings highlight the vast heterogeneity of patients with HF-CS, emphasize that HF chronicity is a relevant disease modifier in CS, and indicate that future clinical trials should account for this.

Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit. METHODS: Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality. RESULTS: N = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5-72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6-8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15-30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction-p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit-risk ratio.

Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of all CS cases. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on sex-related differences in HF-CS, especially regarding use of treatment and mortality risk in women vs. men. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and mortality between women and men with HF-CS. METHODS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS (without acute myocardial infarction) from 16 tertiary-care centers in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and 30-day mortality in women vs. men with HF-CS. RESULTS: N = 1030 patients with HF-CS were analyzed, of whom 290 (28.2%) were women. Compared to men, women were more likely to be older, less likely to have a known history of heart failure or cardiovascular risk factors, and lower rates of highly depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and renal dysfunction. Nevertheless, CS severity as well as use of treatments were comparable, and female sex was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (53.0% vs. 50.8%; adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this large HF-CS registry, sex disparities in risk factors and clinical presentation were observed. Despite these differences, the use of treatments was comparable, and both sexes exhibited similarly high mortality rates. Further research is necessary to evaluate if sex-tailored treatment, accounting for the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation, might improve outcomes in HF-CS.

Efficacy and safety of Impella 5.0 in cardiogenic shock: an updated systematic review.

Aim: The impact on safety and efficacy outcomes of Impella 5.0 in cardiogenic shock (CS) has not been systematically assessed. Materials & methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature (PROSPERO protocol: CRD42020164680) to critically appraise available evidence on Impella 5.0 comparative safety, efficacy and effectiveness. Results: Of 244 retrieved citations, 17 original articles met the a priori defined inclusion criteria. All included studies had a retrospective study design and, overall, reported on, respectively, 52 and 67 different safety and efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. Thirty-day survival rates ranged from 40 to 94%, myocardial recovery from 18 to 93%. Conclusion: Impella 5.0 provides a full cardiac support, it is associated with a lower rate of vascular complications, it represents a valuable bridge-to-decision and allows for resolution of intercurrent clinical conditions. As available data suggest Impella 5.0 good performance in CS of various etiologies, more solid evidence will come from much-needed large-scale all-comer registries and prospective multicenter randomized trials.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition in which the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body's needs. Despite advances in biomedical research and technology, CS is still associated with high mortality. Some devices (Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO), placed through vascular accesses, can support the heart in the failing phase. The aim of this systematic review of the scientific literature is to evaluate safety, efficacy and effectiveness of Impella 5.0 in CS.