» Articles » PMID: 34424614

Outcome of Patients with Non-ischaemic Cardiogenic Shock Supported by Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device

Overview
Journal ESC Heart Fail
Date 2021 Aug 23
PMID 34424614
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are used to haemodynamically stabilize patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) caused by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). One out of every two patients has a non-ischaemic cause of CS, and these patients differ profoundly from patients with AMI-related CS. We assessed the usefulness of pVAD support for patients with non-ischaemic CS.

Methods And Results: We analysed 106 patients with CS and Impella® support between 2015 and 2018. CS was non-ischaemic in 36 patients and AMI-related in 70 patients. Compared with the AMI group, those in the non-ischaemic group were significantly younger [median age 62 (50.8, 70.8) years vs. 68 (58.0, 75.5) years, P = 0.007] and had more patients with severely reduced left ventricular function (94% vs. 79%, P = 0.035) and worse glomerular filtration rate [45 (27, 57) mL/min vs. 60 (44, 78) mL/min]. Propensity score matching yielded 31 patients with non-ischaemic CS and 31 patients with AMI-related CS, without a difference in baseline laboratory values or comorbidities. In both groups, pVAD support was performed along with haemodynamic stabilization, reduction of catecholamines and normalization of lactate levels. In 7 days, systolic blood pressure increased from 91 (80, 101) mmHg at baseline to 100 (100, 120) mmHg in the non-ischaemic CS group (P = 0.001) and 89 (80, 100) mmHg at baseline to 112 (100, 128) mmHg in the AMI-related CS group (P = 0.001). Moreover, in 7 days, the need of catecholamines (calculated as vasoactive-inotropic score) decreased from 32.0 (11.1, 47.0) at baseline to 5.3 (0, 16.1) in the non-ischaemic group (P = 0.001) and from 35.2 (18.11, 67.0) to zero (0, 0) in the AMI-related CS group (P = 0.001). Lactate level decreased from 3.8 (2.8, 5.9) mmol/L at baseline to 1.0 (0.8, 2.1) mmol/L (P = 0.001) in the non-ischaemic CS group and from 3.8 (2.6, 6.5) mmol/L to 1.2 (1.0, 2.0) mmol/L in the AMI-related group (P = 0.001). In the non-ischaemic CS group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or long-term mechanical circulatory support. Two of these upgraded patients received heart transplantation. In the AMI group, eight patients (25.8%) were upgraded to VA-ECMO or long-term mechanical circulatory support. Ninety-day survival did not significantly differ between the groups (non-ischaemic CS group 48.4%, AMI-related CS group 45.2%, P = 0.799).

Conclusions: pVAD support is useful for haemodynamic stabilization of patients with non-ischaemic CS and is valuable as a bridge to patients' recovery or long-term left ventricular support and heart transplantation.

Citing Articles

Efficacy of a 16 Fr sheath strategy during Impella support to reduce access site bleeding in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Tanizaki Y, Fukutomi M, Onishi T, Ando T, Takanashi S, Tobaru T Heart Vessels. 2025; .

PMID: 39907760 DOI: 10.1007/s00380-025-02514-w.


Letter to the Editor: Response to "Diagnostic yield, safety and therapeutic consequences of myocardial biopsy in clinically suspected fulminant myocarditis unweanable from mechanical circulatory support".

Giordani A, Baritussio A, Marcolongo R, Caforio A Ann Intensive Care. 2024; 14(1):5.

PMID: 38194020 PMC: 10776506. DOI: 10.1186/s13613-023-01232-8.


Complications and Outcomes of Impella Treatment in Cardiogenic Shock Patients With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Saito Y, Tateishi K, Toda K, Matsumiya G, Kobayashi Y J Am Heart Assoc. 2023; 12(17):e030819.

PMID: 37646217 PMC: 10547360. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.123.030819.


Fulminant Myocarditis: When One Size Does Not Fit All - A Critical Review of the Literature.

Giordani A, Baritussio A, Vicenzetto C, Peloso-Cattini M, Pontara E, Bison E Eur Cardiol. 2023; 18:e15.

PMID: 37405349 PMC: 10316338. DOI: 10.15420/ecr.2022.54.


Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.

Ardito V, Sarucanian L, Rognoni C, Pieri M, Scandroglio A, Tarricone R J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023; 10(4).

PMID: 37103037 PMC: 10142129. DOI: 10.3390/jcdd10040158.


References
1.
Ponikowski P, Voors A, Anker S, Bueno H, Cleland J, Coats A . 2016 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2016; 69(12):1167. DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2016.11.005. View

2.
Tehrani B, Truesdell A, Sherwood M, Desai S, Tran H, Epps K . Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73(13):1659-1669. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084. View

3.
Ogunbayo G, Ha L, Ahmad Q, Misumida N, Elbadawi A, Olorunfemi O . In-hospital outcomes of percutaneous ventricular assist devices versus intra-aortic balloon pumps in non-ischemia related cardiogenic shock. Heart Lung. 2018; 47(4):392-397. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.02.002. View

4.
Schrage B, Weimann J, Dabboura S, Yan I, Hilal R, Becher P . Patient Characteristics, Treatment and Outcome in Non-Ischemic vs. Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(4). PMC: 7230560. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9040931. View

5.
Hochman J, Sleeper L, WEBB J, Sanborn T, White H, Talley J . Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(9):625-34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199908263410901. View