Are There Etiology-specific Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes in Patients on Impella 5.5 Support?

Overview

Journal JTCVS Open

Specialty Cardiology & Vascular Diseases

Date 2024 Nov 13

PMID 39534347

Authors

Jean-Luc A Maigrot

Lucy Thuita

Michael Z Y Tong

Edward G Soltesz

Nicholas G Smedira

Shinya Unai

Randall C Starling

Andrew Higgins

David Moros

Eugene H Blackstone

Aaron J Weiss

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To identify possible etiology-specific differences in preoperative risk factors for major adverse events during Impella 5.5 support in patients with ischemic (ICM) and nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM).

Methods: From October 2019 to January 2023, 228 Impella 5.5 devices were inserted at our institution. Patients were stratified into ICM (n = 124) and NICM (n = 104) cohorts. The primary outcome was a composite of death/stroke/new-onset dialysis while actively receiving Impella 5.5 support. Random forests identified preoperative factors predictive of the primary outcome separately for each cohort, with ranking by variable importance.

Results: The primary outcome occurred in 42 (34%) patients with ICM and 35 (34%) patients with NICM. Twenty-one (17%) patients with ICM and 21 (20%) patients with NICM died on Impella 5.5; stroke occurred in 12 (9.7%) patients with ICM and 3 (2.9%) patients with NICM, and new-onset dialysis was initiated in 23 (19%) patients with ICM and 24 (23%) patients with NICM while actively receiving Impella 5.5 support. Risk factors reflecting systemic and myocardial cellular injury, end-organ and cardiopulmonary failure, right ventricular dysfunction, and smaller left ventricular dimensions were most predictive of adverse outcomes in both cohorts. Indications for Impella 5.5 and device strategy (bridge to recovery, advanced therapies, or decision) were not top risk factors in either cohort.

Conclusions: Risk factors related to preoperative stability, right ventricular dysfunction, and left ventricular size were more predictive of adverse outcomes while actively receiving Impella 5.5 support than indication or device strategy. These factors could help identify high-risk patients who may benefit from additional tailored management to reduce their risk for these impactful adverse outcomes while on Impella 5.5 support.

References

Polak J, HOLMAN B, Wynne J, Colucci W . Right ventricular ejection fraction: an indicator of increased mortality in patients with congestive heart failure associated with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1983; 2(2):217-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(83)80156-9. View

Rock J, Kos C, Lemaire A, Ikegami H, Russo M, Moin D . Single center first year experience and outcomes with Impella 5.5 left ventricular assist device. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022; 17(1):124. PMC: 9128113. DOI: 10.1186/s13019-022-01871-1. View

Schumer E, Bai Y, Kotkar K, Masood M, Itoh A, Schilling J . Surgically implanted endovascular, microaxial left ventricular assist device: A single institution study. JTCVS Tech. 2024; 23:63-71. PMC: 10859563. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2023.10.012. View

Pesaro A, Katz M, Katz J, Barbas C, Makdisse M, Correa A . Mechanical Ventilation and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Observational Study. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0151302. PMC: 4792462. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151302. View

Baran D, Grines C, Bailey S, Burkhoff D, Hall S, Henry T . SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the.... Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94(1):29-37. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28329. View

Ishwaran H, Lu M . Standard errors and confidence intervals for variable importance in random forest regression, classification, and survival. Stat Med. 2018; 38(4):558-582. PMC: 6279615. DOI: 10.1002/sim.7803. View

Sroubek J, Vajapey R, Sipko J, Soltesz E, Weiss A, Bhargava M . First-in-Human Experience With Impella 5.0/5.5 for High-Risk Patients With Advanced Heart Failure Undergoing VT Ablation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023; 82(5):469-471. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.012. View

Stone G, Selker H, Thiele H, Patel M, Udelson J, Ohman E . Relationship Between Infarct Size and Outcomes Following Primary PCI: Patient-Level Analysis From 10 Randomized Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(14):1674-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.01.069. View

Velazquez E, Lee K, Jones R, Al-Khalidi H, Hill J, Panza J . Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery in Patients with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(16):1511-20. PMC: 4938005. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602001. View

10.

Ramzy D, Soltesz E, Silvestry S, Daneshmand M, Kanwar M, DAlessandro D . Improved clinical outcomes associated with the Impella 5.5 compared to the Impella 5.0 in contemporary cardiogenic shock and heart failure patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023; 42(5):553-557. DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2023.01.011. View

11.

Lim H, Ranasinghe A, Quinn D, Chue C, Mascaro J . Outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock due to end-stage heart failure. J Intensive Care Soc. 2022; 23(2):170-176. PMC: 9125436. DOI: 10.1177/1751143720988706. View

12.

Hong Y, Agrawal N, Hess N, Ziegler L, Sicke M, Hickey G . Outcomes of Impella 5.0 and 5.5 for cardiogenic shock: A single-center 137 patient experience. Artif Organs. 2024; 48(7):771-780. PMC: 11411461. DOI: 10.1111/aor.14735. View

13.

Funamoto M, Kunavarapu C, Kwan M, Matsuzaki Y, Shah M, Ono M . Single center experience and early outcomes of Impella 5.5. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023; 10:1018203. PMC: 10011692. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1018203. View

14.

Gao W, Zhang M, Song Y, Han X, Xu Y, Zhou J . Different expression and prognostic value of troponin in ischemic cardiomyopathy and non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Med Res. 2023; 28(1):220. PMC: 10316578. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-023-01169-5. View

15.

Felker G, Thompson R, Hare J, Hruban R, Clemetson D, Howard D . Underlying causes and long-term survival in patients with initially unexplained cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342(15):1077-84. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200004133421502. View

16.

Lee H, Hong S, Ahn C, Yang J, Gwon H, Kim J . Clinical Implications of Thrombocytopenia at Cardiogenic Shock Presentation: Data from a Multicenter Registry. Yonsei Med J. 2020; 61(10):851-859. PMC: 7515787. DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2020.61.10.851. View

17.

Sonoda T, Wada H, Ogita M, Takahashi D, Nishio R, Yasuda K . Clinical features and predictors of outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022; 22(1):185. PMC: 9020007. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-022-02628-3. View

18.

Jantti T, Tarvasmaki T, Harjola V, Parissis J, Pulkki K, Javanainen T . Hypoalbuminemia is a frequent marker of increased mortality in cardiogenic shock. PLoS One. 2019; 14(5):e0217006. PMC: 6522037. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217006. View

19.

Balthazar T, Van Mieghem N, Raes M, Van Loo I, Verbrugge F . Short-term percutaneous mechanical circulatory support: no promise without positioning!. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2023; 12(12):869-877. DOI: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuad097. View

20.

Ghio S, Gavazzi A, Campana C, Inserra C, Klersy C, Sebastiani R . Independent and additive prognostic value of right ventricular systolic function and pulmonary artery pressure in patients with chronic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37(1):183-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)01102-5. View