Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience
- PMID: 30403366
- PMCID: PMC6616211
- DOI: 10.1177/2048872618805486
Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience
Abstract
Aims: Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients remains high. Short-term mechanical circulatory support with Impella can be used to support the circulation in these patients, but data from randomised controlled studies and 'real-world' data are sparse. The aim is to describe real-life data on outcomes and complications of our 12 years of clinical experience with Impella in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction and to identify predictors of 6-month mortality.
Methods: We describe a single-centre registry from October 2004 to December 2016 including all patients treated with Impella for cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. We report outcomes and complications and identify predictors of 6-month mortality.
Results: Our overall clinical experience consists of 250 patients treated with Impella 2.5, Impella CP or Impella 5.0. A total of 172 patients received Impella therapy for cardiogenic shock, of which 112 patients had cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The mean age was 60.1±10.6 years, mean arterial pressure was 67 (56-77) mmHg, lactate was 6.2 (3.6-9.7) mmol/L, 87.5% were mechanically ventilated and 59.6% had a cardiac arrest before Impella placement. Overall 30-day mortality was 56.2% and 6-month mortality was 60.7%. Complications consisted of device-related vascular complications (17.0%), non-device-related bleeding (12.5%), haemolysis (7.1%) and stroke (3.6%). In a multivariate analysis, pH before Impella placement is a predictor of 6-month mortality.
Conclusions: Our registry shows that Impella treatment in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction is feasible, although mortality rates remain high and complications occur.
Keywords: Impella; Mechanical circulatory support; acute heart failure; cardiogenic shock; percutaneous left-ventricular assist device.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures
References
-
- Ouweneel DM, Henriques JP. Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: current indications and recommendations. Heart 2012; 98: 1246–1254. - PubMed
-
- Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JP, et al. Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 70: 532–537. - PubMed
-
- Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JP, et al. Effects of mechanical left ventricular unloading by Impella on left ventricular dynamics in high-risk and primary percutaneous coronary intervention patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2010; 75: 187–194. - PubMed
-
- Lam K, Sjauw KD, van der Meulen J, et al. A combined surgical and percutaneous approach through the axillary artery to introduce the Impella LP5.0 for short-term circulatory support. Int J Cardiol 2009; 134: 277–279. - PubMed
-
- Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2017; 39: 119–177. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
