JoVE Logo
Faculty Resource Center

Sign In

Summary

Abstract

Introduction

Protocol

Representative Results

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Materials

References

Medicine

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

Published: June 12th, 2021

DOI:

10.3791/62110

1Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, 2Division of Cardiology, University of Nebraska, 3Division of Cardiology, Henry Ford Health System

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices are increasingly being utilized in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Herein, we discuss the mechanism of action and hemodynamic effects of such devices. We also review algorithms and best practices for the implantation, management and weaning of these complex devices.

Cardiogenic shock is defined as persistent hypotension, accompanied by evidence of end organ hypo-perfusion. Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) are used for the treatment of cardiogenic shock in an effort to improve hemodynamics. Impella is currently the most common PVAD and actively pumps blood from the left ventricle into the aorta. PVADs unload the left ventricle, increase cardiac output and improve coronary perfusion. PVADs are typically placed in the cardiac catheterization laboratory under fluoroscopic guidance via the femoral artery when feasible. In cases of severe peripheral arterial disease, PVADs can be implanted through an alternative access. In this article, we summarize the mechanism of action of PVAD and the data supporting their use in the treatment of cardiogenic shock.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is defined as persistent hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg for >30 minutes, or the need for vasopressors or inotropes), end-organ hypo-perfusion (urine output <30 mL/h, cool extremities or lactate > 2 mmol/L), pulmonary congestion (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ≥ 15 mmHg) and decrease cardiac performance (cardiac index <2.2 Equation 1)1,2 due to a primary cardiac disorder. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the most common cause of CS3<....

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

This protocol is the standard of care in our institution.

1. Insertion of the PVAD (e.g., Impella CP)

  1. Obtain common femoral access over the lower half of the femoral head under fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance using a micro-puncture needle9,10. Position the micro-puncture sheath and obtain an angiogram of the femoral artery to confirm appropriate arteriotomy location11.
  2. Insert a 6 Fr sh.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

Table 1 shows the safety and efficacy of PVAD implantation35,36,37,38,39,40.

Optimizing PVAD Outcomes
PVADs are a resource-heavy intervention that requires significant experience and expertise to optimize outcomes. The following best practices should be consi.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

Minimizing the Risks and Complications of PVAD (Table 2)
The hemodynamic benefits of PVAD can be significantly neutralized if complications from large-bore access occur, such as major bleeding and acute limb ischemia28,29. It is thus essential to minimize the risk and complications of the device.

In order to decrease access site complications and reduce the number of access attempts, ultrasound and fluoroscopic g.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

None

....

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

Name Company Catalog Number Comments
4 Fr-018-10 cm Silhouette Stiffened Micropuncture Set Cook G48002 Microvascular access
5 Fr Infiniti Pigtail Catheter Cordis 524-550S pigtail catheter
Impella CP Intra-cardiac Assist Catheter ABIOMED 0048-0003 Impella catheter kit

  1. Holger, T., et al. Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 139 (3), 395-403 (2019).
  2. Hochman, J. S., et al. Early Revascularization in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. New England Journal of Medicine. 341 (9), 625-634 (1999).
  3. van Diepen, S., et al. Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 136 (16), 232-268 (2017).
  4. Kolte, D. h. a. v. a. l., et al. Trends in Incidence, Management, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States. Journal of the American Heart Association. 3 (1), 000590 (2014).
  5. Aditya, M., Sunil, R. V. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 10 (5), 004337 (2017).
  6. Amit, A. P., et al. The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support. Circulation. 141 (4), 273-284 (2020).
  7. Kajy, M., et al. Deploying Mechanical Circulatory Support Via the Axillary Artery in Cardiogenic Shock and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The American Journal of Cardiology. 128, 127-133 (2020).
  8. Afana, M., et al. Transcaval access for the emergency delivery of 5.0 liters per minute mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. , 29235 (2020).
  9. Sandoval, Y., et al. Contemporary Arterial Access in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 10 (22), 2233-2241 (2017).
  10. Seto, A. H., et al. Real-Time Ultrasound Guidance Facilitates Femoral Arterial Access and Reduces Vascular Complications. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 3 (7), 751-758 (2010).
  11. Mignatti, A., Friedmann, P., Slovut, D. P. Targeting the safe zone: A quality improvement project to reduce vascular access complications: Vascular Access Complications Postcardiac Catheterization. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 91 (1), 27-32 (2018).
  12. Rihal, C. S., et al. 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d'intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 65 (19), 7-26 (2015).
  13. Burzotta, F., et al. Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: Collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. International Journal of Cardiology. 201, 684-691 (2015).
  14. Basir, M. B., et al. Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 93 (7), 1173-1183 (2019).
  15. Kaki, A., et al. Access and closure management of large bore femoral arterial access. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 31 (6), 969-977 (2018).
  16. Basir, M. B., et al. Effect of Early Initiation of Mechanical Circulatory Support on Survival in Cardiogenic Shock. The American Journal of Cardiology. 119 (6), 845-851 (2017).
  17. Tehrani, B. N., et al. Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 73 (13), 1659-1669 (2019).
  18. Ouweneel, D. M., et al. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 69 (3), 278-287 (2017).
  19. Alushi, B., et al. Impella versus IABP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Open Heart. 6 (1), 000987 (2019).
  20. Ginwalla, M., Tofovic, D. S. Current Status of Inotropes in Heart Failure. Heart Failure Clinics. 14 (4), 601-616 (2018).
  21. O'Neill, W. W., et al. Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device. American Heart Journal. 202, 33-38 (2018).
  22. O'neill, W. W., et al. The Current Use of Impella 2.5 in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Results from the USpella Registry. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 27 (1), 1-11 (2014).
  23. Hernandez, G. A., et al. Trends in Utilization and Outcomes of Pulmonary Artery Catheterization in Heart Failure With and Without Cardiogenic Shock. Journal of Cardiac Failure. 25 (5), 364-371 (2019).
  24. Thayer, K., et al. Pulmonary Artery Catheter Usage and Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. 39 (4), 54-55 (2020).
  25. Fincke, R., et al. Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: A report from the SHOCK trial registry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 44 (2), 340-348 (2004).
  26. Lim, H. S., Gustafsson, F. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index: physiological basis and clinical application. European Journal of Heart Failure. 22 (1), 32-38 (2020).
  27. Korabathina, R., et al. The pulmonary artery pulsatility index identifies severe right ventricular dysfunction in acute inferior myocardial infarction. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 80 (4), 593-600 (2012).
  28. Lauten, A., et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circulation. Heart Failure. 6 (1), 23-30 (2013).
  29. Dixon, S. R., et al. A Prospective Feasibility Trial Investigating the Use of the Impella 2.5 System in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (The PROTECT I Trial): Initial U.S. Experience. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2 (2), 91-96 (2009).
  30. Abu-Fadel, M. S., et al. Fluoroscopy vs. Traditional guided femoral arterial access and the use of closure devices: A randomized controlled trial. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 74 (4), 533-539 (2009).
  31. Lata, K., Kaki, A., Grines, C., Blank, N., Elder, M., Schreiber, T. Pre-close technique of percutaneous closure for delayed hemostasis of large-bore femoral sheaths. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 31 (4), 504-510 (2018).
  32. Basir, M. B., et al. Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: The Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 91 (3), 454-461 (2018).
  33. Udesen, N. J., et al. Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. American Heart Journal. 214, 60-68 (2019).
  34. Clinical Research. Protected PCI Community Available from: https://www.protectedpci.com/clinical-research/ (2020)
  35. Seyfarth, M., 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. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 52 (19), 1584-1588 (2008).
  36. Schrage, B., et al. Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation. 139 (10), 1249-1258 (2019).
  37. Casassus, F., et al. The use of Impella 2.5 in severe refractory cardiogenic shock complicating an acute myocardial infarction. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 28 (1), 41-50 (2015).
  38. Joseph, S. M., Brisco, M. A., Colvin, M., Grady, K. L., Walsh, M. N., Cook, J. L. Women With Cardiogenic Shock Derive Greater Benefit From Early Mechanical Circulatory Support: An Update From the cVAD Registry. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 29 (3), 248-256 (2016).
  39. Lauten, A., et al. Percutaneous Left-Ventricular Support With the Impella-2.5-Assist Device in Acute Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation: Heart Failure. 6 (1), 23-30 (2013).
  40. Ouweneel, D. M., et al. Impella CP Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: The IMPRESS trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. , 23127 (2016).
  41. Badiye, A. P., Hernandez, G. A., Novoa, I., Chaparro, S. V. Incidence of Hemolysis in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Treated with Impella Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device. ASAIO Journal. 62 (1), 11-14 (2016).

This article has been published

Video Coming Soon

JoVE Logo

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Research

Education

ABOUT JoVE

Copyright © 2024 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved