Impella mechanical circulatory support: does it take of the load or create a catastrophe?

Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care

Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Published: December 2021

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuab094DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

impella mechanical
4
mechanical circulatory
4
circulatory support
4
support load
4
load create
4
create catastrophe?
4
impella
1
circulatory
1
support
1
load
1

Similar Publications

Although mortality risk prediction in cardiogenic shock (CS) is possible, assessing the impact of the multitude of therapeutic efforts on outcomes is not straightforward. We assessed whether a temporary mechanical circulatory support comprehensive approach to the treatment of CS may reduce 30-day mortality as compared to expected mortality predicted by the recently proposed Cardiogenic Shock Score (CSS). Consecutive CS patients supported by pVAD Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) at two national referral centers were included.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The concomitant use of IMPELLA and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) (ECPELLA) has been increasingly used to treat severe cardiogenic shock. However, the relationship between severity of heart failure on admission and prognosis based on differences in the mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is not fully understood. This study evaluated the association between lactate levels on admission and clinical outcomes based on differences in MCS.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (PIVSR) is a rare but serious complication of acute myocardial infarction. Determining how to conduct surgical repair safely is critical. We compared the outcomes of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation during perioperative mechanical circulatory support management in patients with PIVSR (n = 22).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: The benefit of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, MA) for patients undergoing non-emergent, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is unclear and currently the subject of a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), PROTECT IV. While contemporary registry data from PROTECT III demonstrated improvement of outcomes with Impella when compared with historical data (PROTECT II), there is lack of direct comparison to the HR-PCI cohort that did not receive Impella support.

Methods: We retrospectively identified patients from our institution meeting PROTECT III inclusion criteria (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] <35% with unprotected left main or last remaining vessel or LVEF <30% undergoing multivessel PCI), and compared this group (NonIMP) to the published outcomes data from the PROTECT III registry (IMP).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Emerging evidence suggests the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in the therapy of refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). However, largerandomized trials addressing the role of Impella in the therapy of infarct-associated CS are sparse. As such, evidence coming from comprehensive retrospective studies or meta-analyses is of major importance in order to clarify the role of the Impella device in this setting.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!