ECMO and Short-term Support for Cardiogenic Shock in Heart Failure

Purpose of Review

This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure.

Recent Findings

Trials done previously have shown that IABP does not improve survival in cardiogenic shock compared to medical treatment, and that neither Impella 2.5 nor TandemHeart improves survival compared to IABP. The “IMPRESS in severe shock” trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing ECMO with IABP showed 33% improved 30-day survival with ECMO (risk difference 33%; 95% CI 14–52%; p =?0.0008; NNT 3).

Summary

ECMO is indicated in medically refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO can be considered in cardiogenic shock patients with estimated mortality of more than 50%. ECMO is probably the MCS of choice in cardiogenic shock with; biventricular failure, respiratory failure, life-threatening arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.

     

Support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:The survival benefit and safety of Impella support versus intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock were investigated in several observational trials that revealed mixed results. Thus, in order to provide new evidence-based medical evidence for clinical treatment, we undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of Impella versus IABP in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.Methods:We will search the EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library from inception to Mar 2021 to retrieve relevant studies. Two independent authors will extract the information from the selected studies. Disagreements will be resolved through a discussion with a third review author. The outcomes include mortality and complications. The quality of randomized trials will be assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies - of Interventions for non-randomized, observational studies. Review Manager software (v 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration) will be used for the meta-analysis.Results:The present meta-analysis will compare the efficacy and safety of Impella versus IABP in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.Conclusions:The results of our review will be reported strictly following the PRISMA criteria and the review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings.OSF registration number:10.17605/OSF.IO/SKEQ7.Ethics and dissemination:Ethical approval and patient consent are not required because this study is a literature-based study. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.     

Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membranous Oxygenation (ECMO) for Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS) is increasing. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of Impella use with extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) support in patients with CS. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for observational studies comparing Impella to ECMO in patients with CS. Risk ratios (RRs) for categorical variables and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. Twelve retrospective studies and one prospective study (Impella n=6652, ECMO n=1232) were identified. Impella use was associated with lower incidence of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.88 [95% CI 0.80-0.94], P=0.0004), stroke (RR 0.30 [0.21-0.42], P<0.00001), access-site bleeding (RR 0.50 [0.37-0.69], P<0.0001), major bleeding (RR 0.56 [0.39-0.80], P=0.002), and limb ischemia (RR 0.42 [0.27-0.65], P=0.0001). Baseline lactate levels were significantly lower in the Impella group (SMD -0.52 [-0.73- -0.31], P<0.00001). There was no significant difference in mortality at 6-12 months, MCS duration, need for MCS escalation, bridge-to-LVAD or heart transplant, and renal replacement therapy use between Impella and ECMO groups. In patients with CS, Impella device use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, stroke, and device-related complications than ECMO. However, patients in the ECMO group had higher baseline lactate levels.     

Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock

BackgroundPercutaneous ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are increasingly used for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in hospitals throughout the United States.MethodsUsing the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017, we identified hospital admissions that underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and non-elective Impella or ECMO placement for AMI-CS using ICD-10 codes. Propensity-score matching was performed to compare both groups for primary and secondary outcomes.ResultsWe identified 6290 admissions for AMI-CS who underwent PCI and were treated with Impella (n = 5730, 91%) or ECMO (n = 560, 9%) from October 2015 to December 2017. After propensity-match analysis, the ECMO cohort had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (43.3% vs 26.7%, OR: 2.10, p = 0.021). The incidence of acute respiratory failure and vascular complications were significantly lower in the Impella cohort. We observed a shorter duration of hospital stay and lower hospital costs in the Impella cohort compared to those who received ECMO.ConclusionsIn AMI-CS, the use of Impella was associated with better clinical outcomes, fewer complications, shorter length of hospital stay and lower hospital cost compared to those undergoing ECMO placement.     

Sustained Use of the Impella 5.0 Heart Pump Enables Bridge to Clinical Decisions in 34 Patients

We studied whether sustained hemodynamic support (>7 d) with the Impella 5.0 heart pump can be used as a bridge to clinical decisions in patients who present with cardiogenic shock, and whether such support can improve their outcomes.We retrospectively reviewed cases of patients who had Impella 5.0 support at our hospital from August 2017 through May 2019. Thirty-four patients (23 with cardiogenic shock and 11 with severely decompensated heart failure) underwent sustained support for a mean duration of 11.7 ± 9.3 days (range, ≤48 d). Of 29 patients (85.3%) who survived to next therapy, 15 were weaned from the Impella, 8 underwent durable left ventricular assist device placement, 4 were escalated to venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, and 2 underwent heart transplantation. The 30-day survival rate was 76.5% (26 of 34 patients). Only 2 patients had a major adverse event: one each had an ischemic stroke and flail mitral leaflet. None of the devices malfunctioned.Sustained hemodynamic support with the Impella 5.0 not only improved outcomes in patients who presented with cardiogenic shock, but also provided time for multidisciplinary evaluation of potential cardiac recovery, or the need for durable left ventricular assist device implantation or heart transplantation. Our study shows the value of using the Impella 5.0 as a bridge to clinical decisions.     

Clinical Outcomes in Fulminant Myocarditis Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Weighted Meta-Analysis of 170 Patients

BackgroundFulminant myocarditis (FM) is often a self-resolving entity if the patient survives the acute illness. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used successfully for treatment of cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest due to FM. However, clinical outcomes are not well understood, in part because of small study sizes. In the absence of large clinical trials, performance of pooled analysis represents the best method for ascertaining survival rates for ECMO.MethodsA systematic Medline search was conducted on ECMO for the treatment of FM, updated up to November 2012. Studies with n ≥10 published in the year 2000 or later that reported survival to hospital discharge for FM requiring ECMO were included. Studies that reported only on pediatric patients were excluded. The smaller of studies with overlapping patients were excluded. Cochran Q and I² were calculated and reported.ResultsSix studies were included in the analysis, encompassing 170 patients. The minimum and maximum reported rates of survival to hospital discharge were 60.0% and 87.5%, respectively. The cumulative rate was 115/170. The calculated Cochran Q value was 3.63, which was not significant for heterogeneity. The I² value was 0%. The pooled estimate rate was 66.9% with a 95% confidence interval of 59.4%–73.7%.ConclusionMore than two-thirds of patients with FM and either cardiogenic shock and/or cardiac arrest survive to hospital discharge with ECMO. These findings could be used in the risk-benefit analysis when initiation of a cardiopulmonary bypass system is being considered for FM.     

A Case Report of Churg–Strauss Syndrome Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Churg–Strauss Syndrome (CSS) complicated with cardiogenic shock is rare. Few case reports have described successful treatment of this rare disease. However, no one has reported on the application of mechanical life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to treat this life-threatening disease.A 36-year-old female with limb numbness for >10 days, chest tightness for 2 days, and worsening dyspnea for 5 h presented in the emergency room. Vital signs showed a low blood pressure (104/60 mm Hg), increased heart rate (158 bpm), and respiration rate (28 bpm). Laboratory tests revealed that eosinophil was significantly increased (WBC: 34.46 × 10⁹/L, neutrophil: 7.56 × 10⁹/L[21.9%], eosinophil: 23.84 × 10⁹/L[69.2%]), and serum myocardial enzymes was abnormal (CK 1049U/L, CKMB-mass 145.1 μg/L, cTnI 16.24 μg/L). Myocardial injury (tachycardia with ST elevation) and poor heart function (LVEF 31%) were found by electrocardiogram and transthoracic echocardiography. On the next day, cardiogenic shock had been developed as demonstrated by deteriorating the perfusion index.Churg–Strauss Syndrome with cardiogenic shock.A series of conservative therapy with drugs such as corticosteroids, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, nitrates, calcium antagonists, inotrope, and vasopressors were initiated on the day of admission. The treatment was ineffective and a cardiogenic shock developed on the next day. Thus, ECMO was initiated immediately to stabilize circulation and perfusion. At the same time, high-dose corticosteroids combined with immunosuppressive therapy were continuously used.Symptoms of cardiogenic shock were gradually improved after ECMO treatment. Elevated values of cardiac enzymes were decreased and the dose of vasoactive drugs was reduced. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was discontinued after 8 days, and the patient was eventually weaned off the ventilator. The patient was discharged after 40 days treatment.Once a CSS develops into a cardiogenic shock, the ECMO should be considered as an alternative therapeutics in that it stabilizes hemodynamic status, maintains effective tissue perfusion, and provides an opportunity for the recovery of cardiac function.     

Vasopressors and Inotropes as Predictors of Mortality in Acute Severe Cardiogenic Shock Treated With the Impella Device

BackgroundVasopressors and inotropes are the primary pharmacologic agents in the management of cardiogenic shock. Increased use of these agents in the setting of cardiogenic shock treated with the Impella is associated with increased mortality. This study evaluates the use of vasopressors and inotropes as predictors of mortality in patients treated with the Impella for acute cardiogenic shock.MethodsThis retrospective study included 276 patients treated with the Impella 2.5, Impella CP, or Impella 5.0 from March 2011 to January 2020 at a single, tertiary referral center for acute cardiogenic shock.ResultsAll-cause in-hospital mortality was 44.6%. Mortality significantly increased with escalating use of vasopressors and inotropes, with the most significant increase in mortality from use of 2 agents to the use of 3 agents (8.1% vs 39.7%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality whether dobutamine or milrinone was used (44.4% vs 35.7%, p = 0.41); there was increased mortality with use of multiple inotropes. Patients treated with only vasopressors had increased mortality compared to those treated with a combination of agents that included 1 inotrope.ConclusionsThe escalating need for vasopressors and inotropes and particular combinations of these agents are significant predictors of mortality that may help determine whether the Impella or higher level of support is more appropriate to treat acute cardiogenic shock.     

Comparison of ECMO vs ECpella in Patients With Non-Post-Pericardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Meta-Analysis

IntroductionThe impact of Impella and ECMO (ECPELLA) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO in patients with non post-pericardiotomy CS.MethodsAll studies reporting short term outcomes of ECpella or VA ECMO in non post-pericardiotomy CS were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Vascular and bleeding complications and LVAD implantation/heart transplant within 30-days were assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsOf 407 studies identified, 13 observational studies (13,682 patients, 13,270 with ECMO and 412 with ECpella) were included in this analysis. 30-day mortality was 55.8% (51.6–59.9) in the VA-ECMO group and 58.3% (53.5–63.0) in the ECpella group. At meta-regression analysis the implantation of IABP did not affect mortality in the ECMO group. The rate of major bleeding in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 21.3% (16.9–26.5) and 33.1% (25.9–41.2) respectively, while the rates of the composite outcome of LVAD implantation and heart transplantation within 30-days in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 14.4% (9.0–22.2) and 10.8%. When directly compared in 3 studies, ECpella showed a positive effect on 30-day mortality compared to ECMO (OR: 1.81: 1.039–3.159).ConclusionOur data suggest that ECpella may reduce 30-day mortality and increase left ventricle recovery, despite increased of bleeding rates.     

Biventricular Impella placement via complete venous access

Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is an effective option for emergent treatment of critical refractory cardiogenic shock. However, in patients who have inadequate peripheral arterial access, Impella for left ventricular support sometimes requires surgical access, leading to disadvantages for emergent procedures or invasiveness for very sick patients. In addition, Impella for right ventricular support was recently reported to contribute to the management of severe biventricular dysfunction. In this report, we describe a case of refractory cardiogenic shock in a patient with inadequate vascular access who was treated with biventricular Impella via venous and caval‐aortic access under conscious sedation. This technique can be used as a bridge to surgical ventricular assist device or heart transplantation. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Percutaneous biventricular Impella support in therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock

Introduction

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support systems have increasingly been adopted as a bail out strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock. Since studies showed mostly mixed results, however, the use of support systems remains a case by case decision.

The Impella Microaxial Flow Catheter Is Safe and Effective for Treatment of Myocarditis Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: An Analysis From the Global cVAD Registry

Background

Myocarditis complicated by cardiogenic shock remains a complex problem. The use of acute mechanical circulatory support devices for cardiogenic shock is growing. We explored the utility of Impella transvalvular microaxial flow catheters in the setting of myocarditis with cardiogenic shock.

Impella Mechanical Circulatory Support for Takotsubo Syndrome With Shock: A Retrospective Multicenter Analysis

ObjectivesTo analyze the characteristics and outcome of Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for Takotsubo syndrome (TS) with cardiogenic shock.BackgroundTS is an acute heart failure syndrome characterized by transient severe reduction of left ventricular (LV) systolic function, with cardiogenic shock occurring in around 10% of patients. Since inotropes should be avoided due to their role in TS pathogenesis and aggravation of LV outflow tract obstruction, the use of MCS as treatment is a viable treatment option, however, studies are lacking.MethodsThe catheter-based ventricular assist device (cVAD) registry and local MCS databases were screened for TS patients with cardiogenic shock (TS-CS) supported with an Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD). Patient and treatment characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsAt 10 US and European centers, 16 TS-CS patients supported with an Impella pVAD were identified between December 2013 and May 2018 (mean age, 61.8 ± 15.5 years; 87.5% women). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) at presentation was severely reduced (mean, 19.4 ± 8.3%). Prior to MCS, 13 patients (81.3%) were mechanically ventilated, 4 patients (25.0%) had been resuscitated, and mean serum lactate was 4.7 ± 3.5 mmol/L. Mean duration of Impella support was 1.9 ± 1.0 days (range, 1–4 days). Thirteen patients (81.3%) survived to discharge, and all survivors experienced cardiac recovery with significant improvement of LVEF at discharge compared to baseline (20.4 ± 8.8 vs. 52.9 ± 12.0, P < 0.001).ConclusionsThis is the first series of TS-CS patients supported with an Impella pVAD. Mortality was low, and LV systolic function recovered in all survivors. Prospective studies of Impella support in this special condition are warranted.     

Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support (Impella) in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and/or Cardiogenic Shock Not Eligible to PROTECT II Trial

PROTECT I and II trials have tested the efficacy of Impella in patents with high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, patients with severe hemodynamic instability such as cardiac arrest, ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI), or cardiogenic shock were excluded. The objective was to investigate the efficacy of Impella in sicker patient population who were not included in PROTECT trials. These patients merit high-risk PCI who had cardiogenic shock and unstable or decompensated heart failure (HF). From December 2010 to March 2012, 10 consecutive patients with extremely high surgical risk and hemodynamic instability underwent urgent PCI with Impella 2.5 support (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA). These patients were presented with advance HF and/or cardiogenic shock. Among the 10 included patients, 3 patients were with cardiac arrest and 1 patient was with acute myocardial infarction. All patients had successful Impella implantation and remained hemodynamically stable during high-risk PCI. Among the 10 patients 2 patients (20%) died within 1 month and 1 patient developed limb ischemia. In high-risk population nonrandomizable to PROTECT trials with advance HF/cardiogenic shock, Impella could be an important tool for hemodynamic support to PCI or could be a bridge to left ventricle assist device to achieve good recovery. Larger studies need to be conducted on this high-risk population.     

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Post–Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BackgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) complicates 5%-10% of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is the leading cause of early mortality. It remains unclear whether percutaneous mechanical support (pMCS) devices improve post-AMI CS outcome.MethodsA systematic review of original studies comparing the effect of pMCS on AMI-CS mortality was conducted with the use of Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases.ResultsOf 8672 records, 50 were retained for quantitative analysis. Four additional references were added from other sources. Four references reported a significant mortality reduction with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with failed primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or managed with thrombolysis. Meta-analyses showed no advantage of Impella over conventional therapy (pooled OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20-1.46; I² = 0.85) and increased mortality compared with IABP (pooled OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.08-1.62; I² = 0.85). No study reported a mortality advantage for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) over conventional therapy, IABP, or Impella support. Early mortality might be improved with the addition of IABP or Impella to ECMO. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥ 3 bleeding was increased with every pMCS strategy.ConclusionsThe current evidence is of poor to moderate quality, with only 1 in 5 included articles reporting randomised data and several reporting unadjusted outcomes. Yet, there is some evidence to favour IABP use in the setting of thrombolysis or with failed pPCI, and adding IABP or Impella should be considered for patients requiring ECMO.     

Clinical Indications of IMPELLA Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support in a Tertiary Centre

IntroductionThe Impella family of devices are short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) pumps that hold promise in treating patients with acute cardiogenic shock, acting as bridge to recovery, transplant or durable left ventricular assist device. We assessed the clinical utility, indications and outcomes of the Impella family of devices in a tertiary centre.MethodsIn the current study we present our initial 2-year experience with different Impella types. We explored the indications for device implantation, initial hemodynamic and biochemical response and mid-term survival.ResultsA total of 57 patients underwent Impella implantation; 36 Impella CP, 14 Impella 5.0 and 7 Impella RP. Mean age was 54.2 ± 15.2 whereas 78.9% were males. The main indications for left sided MCS included cardiogenic shock secondary to ACS, decompensated dilated or ischemic end stage cardiomyopathy and myocarditis. Mean LVEF pre-Impella implantation was 23 ± 13.7%. PCI was performed in 24 (54.5%) patients. Main indication for Impella RP was RV failure following LVAD implantation.The median duration of support was 5 days (IQR 1 to 10.5 days). 24 h following Impella implantation, there was significant improvement in all hemodynamic parameters as well as renal and liver function. Patients presenting with INTERMACS I had a 30-day survival of 40% whereas patients with INTEMACS 2 or above had a 30-day survival of 82.4%.ConclusionsThe Impella short-term mechanical assist device provides immediate improvement in hemodynamic parameters and end organ function recovery. Patient outcomes are heavily influenced by the stage of shock and the timely insertion of MCS.     

Impella support following emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and cardiogenic shock

BackgroundTo investigate the feasibility and outcomes of Impella 2.5 support in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) and cardiogenic shock (CS), who underwent emergency percutaneous balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods and resultsWe retrospectively analyzed a consecutive series of patients with severe AS and CS who underwent Impella 2.5 support following emergency BAV with or without subsequent PCI. Outcome data included 30-day outcomes, periprocedural as well as throughout the circulatory support period complications. Eight patients with severe AS and CS were identified. Impella 2.5 implantation was successful following emergency BAV in all patients attempted. Additional PCI was performed in four patients. No periprocedural deaths or periprocedural neurologic events occurred. Mean procedure time was 125.9 min (range 64–210 min). Mortality at 30 days was 50%.ConclusionsImpella 2.5 can be used as hemodynamic support in patients with severe AS and CS following emergency percutaneous BAV and may help to improve tolerability of PCI in these high-risk patients.     

The efficacy and safety of alpha-adrenergic blockers for medical expulsion therapy in patients with ureteral calculi: A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

Purpose:Alpha-adrenergic blockers are commonly used as a medical expulsive therapy (MET) for patients with ureteral calculi. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of alpha-adrenergic blockers compared with a placebo when used as a MET.Materials and methods:We carried out a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, and the Cochrane Library, for relevant articles from inception to November 2020. Our aim was to identify placebo-controlled trails in which patients were randomized to receive either alpha-adrenergic blockers (tamsulosin, alfuzosin, doxazosin, terazosin, naftopidil, or silodosin) or a placebo for the treatment of ureteral calculi.Results:According to strict inclusion criteria, database searches identified 8 placebo-controlled studies that included 2284 patients. Generally, α-blockers had no significant effect on the clearance of stones in the urinary tract (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00–1.11). However, subgroup analysis showed that α-blockers were effective in treating distal urinary tract stones (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 1.02–1.15). With regards to adverse events, our analysis showed that the combination of MET with α-blockers was likely to cause dizziness (RR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.06–1.79) and retrograde ejaculation (RR = 3.10; 95% CI = 1.81–5.29).Conclusion:Although α-blockers cannot improve the overall ureteral stone clearance rate, these drugs are still effective for the treatment of stones in the distal urinary tract. However, the application of α-blockers is likely to cause dizziness and/or retrograde ejaculation.     

Clinical Outcomes with β-Blockers for Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BackgroundDebate exists about the efficacy of β-blockers in myocardial infarction and their required duration of usage in contemporary practice.MethodsWe conducted a MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL search for randomized trials evaluating β-blockers in myocardial infarction enrolling at least 100 patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Analysis was performed stratifying trials into reperfusion-era (> 50% undergoing reperfusion or receiving aspirin/statin) or pre-reperfusion-era trials.ResultsSixty trials with 102,003 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. In the acute myocardial infarction trials, a significant interaction (P_interaction = .02) was noted such that β-blockers reduced mortality in the pre-reperfusion (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.94) but not in the reperfusion era (IRR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05). In the pre-reperfusion era, β-blockers reduced cardiovascular mortality (IRR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98), myocardial infarction (IRR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97), and angina (IRR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95), with no difference for other outcomes. In the reperfusion era, β-blockers reduced myocardial infarction (IRR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.83) (number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 209) and angina (IRR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98) (NNTB = 26) at the expense of increase in heart failure (IRR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16) (number needed to treat to harm [NNTH] = 79), cardiogenic shock (IRR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.18-1.41) (NNTH = 90), and drug discontinuation (IRR 1.64; 95% CI, 1.55-1.73), with no benefit for other outcomes. Benefits for recurrent myocardial infarction and angina in the reperfusion era appeared to be short term (30 days).ConclusionsIn contemporary practice of treatment of myocardial infarction, β-blockers have no mortality benefit but reduce recurrent myocardial infarction and angina (short-term) at the expense of increase in heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and drug discontinuation. The guideline authors should reconsider the strength of recommendations for β-blockers post myocardial infarction.     

Usefulness of Impella support in different clinical settings in cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUNDThe Impella pump has emerged as a promising tool in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite its attractive properties, there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting and the potential role of Impella devices in CS patients from routine clinical practice.METHODSThis is an observational, retrospective, single center, cohort study. All consecutive patients with diagnosis of CS and undergoing support with Impella 2.5^®, Impella CP^® or Impella 5.0^® from April 2015 to December 2020 were included. Baseline characteristics, management and outcomes were assessed according to CS severity, age and cause of CS. Main outcome measured was in-hospital mortality. RESULTSA total of 50 patients were included (median age: 59.3 ± 10 years). The most common cause of CS was acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (68%), followed by decompensation of previous cardiomyopathy (22%). A total of 13 patients (26%) had profound CS. Most patients (54%) improved pulmonary congestion at 48 h after Impella support. A total of 19 patients (38%) presented significant bleeding. In-hospital mortality was 42%. Among patients with profound CS (n = 13), five patients were previously supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. A total of eight patients (61.5%) died during the admission, and no patient achieved ventricular recovery. Older patients (≥ 67 years, n = 10) had more comorbidities and the highest mortality (70%). Among patients with ACS (n = 34), 35.3% of patients had profound CS; and in most cases (52.9%), Impella support was performed as a bridge to recovery. In contrast, only one patient from the decompensated cardiomyopathy group (n = 11) presented with profound CS. In 90.9% of these cases, Impella support was used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. There were no cases of death. CONCLUSIONSIn this cohort of real-life CS patients, Impella devices were used in different settings, with different clinical profiles and management. Despite a significant rate of complications, mortality was acceptable and lower than those observed in other series.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a severe clinical condition which includes systemic hypotension and tissue hypoperfusion secondary to cardiac dysfunction with adequate or elevated filling pressures, and is commonly associated to a poor prognosis.^[1] Clinical practice guidelines^[2] recommend the use of inotropic drugs and vasopressors in order to maintain organ perfusion, early revascularization in cases due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in refractory cases.^[1,2] However, despite all these measures, mortality remains high in most series.^[3] The use of inotropic drugs and vasopressors increases myocardial oxygen consumption and proarrhythmic risk,^[4] and the use of MCS is associated with a high rate of complications^[5]. A better prognosis has been consistently observed in high volume centers with full availability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), MCS, intensive cardiac care unit and especifically trained shock teams.^[6–10] Given the complexity of these patients, current guidelines recommend to organize the care of CS in different center networks according to the severity of patients.^[2]As stated before, MCS has emerged during the last years as a promising tool in critically ill patients with refractory CS. The ideal device in patients with CS requires an easy and quick insertion, the ability to unload left ventricle (LV) and increase cardiac output in order to restore tissue hypoperfusion. In this sense, the Impella devices (Abiomed Inc., Massachusetts, USA), consists of a transvalvular axial pump with femoral or axillary insertion that collects blood from the LV and ejects it directly into the ascending aorta.^[3] The Impella device provides MCS with an increase in mean arterial pressure, an increase in cardiac output and peak coronary blood flow while unloading LV, reducing end-diastolic volume, wall stress and oxygen consumption, thus favoring myocardial recovery.^[1,3] However, despite these attractive properties, there are scarce data on the specific clinical setting to use Impella devices and the efficacy and complications in its use in real world. Most publications report experience in high risk PCI or after acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS.^[11]Therefore, the aim of this study was to collect the results and complications of the use of Impella devices in a real world high complexity CS referral center over a five-year period in non-selected patients with CS of any etiology.