ASAIO journal : a peer-reviewed journal of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs
-
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been used for refractory cardiogenic shock; however, it is associated with increased left ventricular afterload. Outcomes associated with the combination of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (Impella) and VA-ECMO remains largely unknown. We retrospectively reviewed patients treated for refractory cardiogenic shock with VA-ECMO (2014-2016). ⋯ Thirty-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ECPELLA cohort (57% vs. 78%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.51 [0.28-0.94], log rank p = 0.02), and this difference remained intact after correcting for STEMI and PCI. No difference between secondary outcomes was observed, except for the inotrope score which was greater in VA-ECMO group by day 2 (11 vs. 0; p = 0.001). In the largest US-based retrospective study, the addition of Impella to VA-ECMO for patients with refractory cardiogenic shock was associated with lower all-cause 30 day mortality, lower inotrope use, and comparable safety profiles as compared with VA-ECMO alone.
-
Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TCS) is recommended for patients with profound cardiogenic shock (CS). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Impella are possible TCS devices, but the device choice and the implantation timing are not definitely established, specifically during acute myocardial infarction. We have analyzed the respective use of ECMO or Impella (2.5, CP, or 5.0) for CS following acute myocardial infarction, from a cohort of patients who underwent TCS within 72 hours after admission for emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2009 to April 2015. ⋯ Modification of the initial TCS choice was required in 10 cases (24%) for assistance upgrading in case of Impella (n = 4) or for left ventricle unloading in case of ECMO (n = 6). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is the technique of choice in case of profound CS, whereas Impella devices seem more appropriate for less severe hemodynamic compromise. Interestingly, the combination of both techniques may help to overcome the limits inherent to each device.
-
Acquired von Willebrand Syndrome (AVWS) in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support is due to the loss of von Willebrand factor (vWF) high molecular weight multimers (HMWMs) by shear-mediated mechanisms. We investigated whether reducing speed in vivo would mitigate the shear effect. ⋯ After 6 hours, there was no significant change in either the vWF activity:antigen ratio or the HMWMs. Decreasing pump speed does not ameliorate AVWS.
-
Recently, a percutaneous right ventricular assist device (RVAD) called the TandemLife Protek Duo (TPD; TandemLife, Pittsburgh, PA) has been introduced. The Protek Duo (TPD) is a temporary RVAD placed via the right internal jugular vein, capable of providing up to 4.5 L of flow. We report a two-center experience using the TPD in 17 patients with right ventricular (RV) failure, 12 of whom were post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.
-
Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the most feared complications of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. However, outcomes in this group have not been well described. We therefore sought to examine clinical outcomes in this patient population in comparison to those with heart failure (HF) and no LVAD, as well as those without HF or LVAD. ⋯ Although LVAD patients with ICH have worse clinical outcomes, the majority survived their event and nearly half were able to be discharged home. Left ventricular assist device patients also have a distinct pattern of bleeding with ICH. Additional study is required to understand risk factors for the development of ICH in this population and ideal management strategies.