The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry

William W O'Neill, Theodore Schreiber, David H W Wohns, Charanjit Rihal, Srihari S Naidu, Andrew B Civitello, Simon R Dixon, Joseph M Massaro, Brijeshwar Maini, E Magnus Ohman, William W O'Neill, Theodore Schreiber, David H W Wohns, Charanjit Rihal, Srihari S Naidu, Andrew B Civitello, Simon R Dixon, Joseph M Massaro, Brijeshwar Maini, E Magnus Ohman

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the periprocedural characteristics and outcomes of patients supported with Impella 2.5 prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (pre-PCI) versus those who received it after PCI (post-PCI) in the setting of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Background: Early mechanical circulatory support may improve outcome in the setting of CS complicating an AMI. However, the optimal timing to initiate hemodynamic support has not been well characterized.

Methods: Data from 154 consecutive patients who underwent PCI and Impella 2.5 support from 38 US hospitals participating in the USpella Registry were included in our study. The primary end-point was survival to discharge. Secondary end-points included assessment of patients' hemodynamics and in-hospital complications. A multivariate regression model was used to identify independent predictors for mortality.

Results: Both groups were comparable except for diabetes (P = 0.02), peripheral vascular disease (P = 0.008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = 0.05), and prior stroke (P = 0.04), all of which were more prevalent in the pre-PCI group. Patients in the pre-PCI group had more lesions (P = 0.006) and vessels (P = 0.01) treated. These patients had also significantly better survival to discharge compared to patients in the post-PCI group (65.1% vs.40.7%, P = 0.003). Survival remained favorable for the pre-PCI group after adjusting for potential confounding variables. Initiation of support prior to PCI with Impella 2.5 was an independent predictor of in-hospital survival (Odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.79, P = 0.01) in multivariate analysis. The incidence of in-hospital complications included in the secondary end-point was similar between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that early initiation of hemodynamic support prior to PCI with Impella 2.5 is associated with more complete revascularization and improved survival in the setting of refractory CS complicating an AMI.

© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Interventional Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Baseline characteristics.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier curve survival to 30 days. CS, cardiogenic shock; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; MV, mechanical ventilation; NSTEMI, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sub-group outcome to discharge. CS, cardiogenic shock; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; MAP, mean arterial pressure; MV, mechanical ventilation; NSTEMI, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; SBP, systolic blood pressure.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Treatment strategies.

References

    1. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, et al. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:618–626.
    1. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44–e122.
    1. Goldberg R, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction. A population-based perspective. Circulation. 2009;119:1211–1219.
    1. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1584–1588.
    1. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012;126:1717–1727.
    1. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1287–1296.
    1. Prondzinsky R, Unverzagt S, Russ M, et al. Hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: The prospective, randomized IABP shock trial. Shock. 2012;37:378–384.
    1. Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Should we change the guidelines. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:459–468.
    1. Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, et al. The outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the type of revascularization: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2013;165:679–682.
    1. Zeymer U, Hochadel M, Hauptmann KE, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the ALKK-PCI registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013;102:223–227.
    1. Henriques JP, Remmelink M, Baan J, Jr, et al. Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:990–992.
    1. Webb JG, Sleeper LA, Buller CE, et al. Implications of the timing of onset of cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1084–1090.
    1. Lauten A, Engström AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: Results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6:23–30.
    1. Engström AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, et al. The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: The Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:2072–2079.
    1. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Correlates of one-year survival in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Angiographic findings from the SHOCK trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1373–1379.
    1. van der Schaaf RJ, Claessen BE, Vis MM, et al. Effect of multivessel coronary disease with or without concurrent chronic total occlusion on one-year mortality in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:955–959.
    1. Hussain F, Philipp RK, Ducas RA, et al. The ability to achieve complete revascularization is associated with improved in-hospital survival in cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: Manitoba cardiogenic SHOCK Registry investigators. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:540–548.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する