Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; 70(06): 458-466
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749686
Others

Rationale and Initiative of the Impella in Cardiac Surgery (ImCarS) Register Platform

Bernd Niemann
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Giessen, Germany
,
Christian Stoppe
2   Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany
3   Abiomed, Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts, United States
,
Michael Wittenberg
4   Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg, Hessia, Germany
,
Susanne Rohrbach
5   Institute of Physiology, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Hessen, Germany
,
Diyar Saeed
6   Department for Cardiac Surgery, Leipzig Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany
,
Michael Billion
7   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Schüchtermann Hospital Bad Rothenfelde, Bad Rothenfelde, Niedersachsen, Germany
,
Evgenij Potapov
8   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin Ringgold Standard Institution, Berlin, Berlin, Germany
,
Mehmet Oezkur
9   Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany
,
Payam Akhyari 
10   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Bastian Schmack
11   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Essen, Essen, Germany
,
David Schibilsky
12   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
,
Alexander M. Bernhardt 
13   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
,
Jan D. Schmitto
14   Department of Cardiac-, Thoracic-, Transplantation- and Vascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
,
Christian Hagl
15   Department of Cardiothoracic, Transplantation and Vascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, München, Germany
,
Paolo Masiello
16   Department of Cardiac Surgery, San Giovanni di Dio e R.A. Hospital, Salerno, Salerno, Italy
,
Andreas Böning
1   Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Giessen, Germany
› Author Affiliations Funding The ImCarS registry is funded by Abiomed.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Corrected by:

Erratum to: Rational and Initiative of the Impella in Cardiac Surgery (ImCarS) Register PlatformThorac Cardiovasc Surg eFirst
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755310

Abstract

Objectives Cardiac support systems are being used increasingly more due to the growing prevalence of heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Reducing cardiac afterload, intracardiac pressure, and flow support are important factors. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and intracardiac microaxial pump systems (Impella) as non-permanent MCS (mechanical circulatory support) are being used increasingly.

Methods We reviewed the recent literature and developed an international European registry for non-permanent MCS.

Results Life-threatening conditions that are observed preoperatively often include reduced left ventricular function, systemic hypoperfusion, myocardial infarction, acute and chronic heart failure, myocarditis, and valve vitia. Postoperative complications that are commonly observed include severe systemic inflammatory response, ischemia-reperfusion injury, trauma-related disorders, which ultimately may lead to low cardiac output (CO) syndrome and organ dysfunctions, which necessitates a prolonged ICU stay. Choosing the appropriate device for support is critical. The management strategies and complications differ by system. The “heart-team” approach is inevitably needed.

However despite previous efforts to elucidate these topics, it remains largely unclear which patients benefit from certain systems, when is the right time to initiate (MCS), which support system is appropriate, what is the optimal level and type of support, which therapeutic additive and supportive strategies should be considered and ultimately, what are the future prospects and therapeutic developments.

Conclusion The European cardiac surgical register ImCarS has been established as an IIT with the overall aim to evaluate data received from the daily clinical practice in cardiac surgery. Interested colleagues are cordially invited to join the register.

Clinical registration number: DRKS00024560.

Positive Ethics Vote: AZ 246/20 Faculty of Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University-Gießen.

Keywords

Impella - ECMO - cardiac support - cardiac surgery

Authors' Contributions

B.N., S.R., A.B., and C.S. have contributed to conception, data collection, writing, and proofreading of the manuscript., M.W. has contributed toward conception and proofreading, D.S. contributed to writing and proofreading the manuscript. M.B., E.P., M.O., P.A., B.S., D.S., A.M.B., J.D.S., and P.M. have contributed to proofreading. All authors are investigators of the ImCarS registry.

In addition to presenting the current data situation, we would like to present the ImCarS Register in Europe and invite the readers in Europe to cooperate. This manuscript describes review data. All authors approved the manuscript and this submission. Our local ethics committee has approved our study and register platform.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 01 April 2022

Accepted: 07 April 2022

Article published online:
11 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Beckmann A, Meyer R, Lewandowski J, Markewitz A, Gummert J. German Heart Surgery Report 2019: the annual updated registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 68 (04) 263-276
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Napp LC, Kühn C, Hoeper MM. et al. Cannulation strategies for percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults. Clin Res Cardiol 2016; 105 (04) 283-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Atkinson TM, Ohman EM, O'Neill WW, Rab T, Cigarroa JE. Interventional Scientific Council of the American College of Cardiology. A practical approach to mechanical circulatory support in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an interventional perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9 (09) 871-883
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S. et al. Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2019; 12 (03) e005618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Berg DD, Barnett CF, Kenigsberg BB. et al. Clinical practice patterns in temporary mechanical circulatory support for shock in the critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) registry. Circ Heart Fail 2019; 12 (11) e006635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pöss J, Köster J, Fuernau G. et al. Risk stratification for patients in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (15) 1913-1920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM. et al; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Mission: Lifeline. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017; 136 (16) e232-e268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schrage B, Becher PM, Bernhardt A. et al. Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an international, multicenter cohort study. Circulation 2020; 142 (22) 2095-2106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Keebler ME, Haddad EV, Choi CW. et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock. JACC Heart Fail 2018; 6 (06) 503-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Seyfarth M, Henriques JP. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump for treating cardiogenic shock: meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (03) 358-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sheu JJ, Tsai TH, Lee FY. et al. Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med 2010; 38 (09) 1810-1817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Belle L, Mangin L, Bonnet H. et al. Emergency extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a hospital without on-site cardiac surgical facilities. EuroIntervention 2012; 8 (03) 375-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jiritano F, Lo Coco V, Matteucci M, Fina D, Willers A, Lorusso R. Temporary mechanical circulatory support in acute heart failure. Card Fail Rev 2020; 6: e01
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Meani P, Gelsomino S, Natour E. et al. Modalities and effects of left ventricle unloading on extracorporeal life support: a review of the current literature. Eur J Heart Fail 2017; 19 (Suppl. 02) 84-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Burkhoff D, Sayer G, Doshi D, Uriel N. Hemodynamics of mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66 (23) 2663-2674
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Honore PM, Barreto Gutierrez L, Kugener L. et al. Risk of harlequin syndrome during bi-femoral peripheral VA-ECMO: should we pay more attention to the watershed or try to change the venous cannulation site?. Crit Care 2020; 24 (01) 450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Barbone A, Malvindi PG, Ferrara P, Tarelli G. Left ventricle unloading by percutaneous pigtail during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011; 13 (03) 293-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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 (19) 1584-1588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD. et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (03) 278-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rios SA, Bravo CA, Weinreich M. et al. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing percutaneous ventricular assist devices versus intra-aortic balloon pump during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention or cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2018; 122 (08) 1330-1338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM. et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2017; 38 (47) 3523-3531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sieweke JT, Berliner D, Tongers J. et al. Mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with the Impella CP microaxial pump for isolated left ventricular failure. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2020; 9 (02) 138-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Loehn T, O'Neill WW, Lange B. et al. Long term survival after early unloading with Impella CP® in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2020; 9 (02) 149-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schroeter MR, Köhler H, Wachter A, Bleckmann A, Hasenfuß G, Schillinger W. Use of the Impella device for acute coronary syndrome complicated by cardiogenic shock—experience from a single heart center with analysis of long-term mortality. J Invasive Cardiol 2016; 28 (12) 467-472
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Karatolios K, Chatzis G, Markus B. et al. Impella support compared to medical treatment for post-cardiac arrest shock after out of hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2018; 126: 104-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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 (01) 23-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T. et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation 2019; 139 (10) 1249-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chen YS, Lin JW, Yu HY. et al. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with assisted extracorporeal life-support versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study and propensity analysis. Lancet 2008; 372 (9638): 554-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 O'Neill WW, Grines C, Schreiber T. et al. Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device. Am Heart J 2018; 202: 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL. et al. Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2017; 119 (06) 845-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 O'Neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DH. et al. The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry. J Interv Cardiol 2014; 27 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Burzotta F, Trani C, Doshi SN. et al. Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. Int J Cardiol 2015; 201: 684-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ouweneel DM, Engstrom AE, Sjauw KD. et al. Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock. Lessons learned from the IMPRESS in STEMI trial. Int J Cardiol 2016; 202: 894-896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bochaton T, Huot L, Elbaz M. et al; IMPELLA-STIC investigators. Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella® LP5.0 pump and an intra-aortic balloon pump for cardiogenic shock in acute myocardial infarction: the IMPELLA-STIC randomized study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2020; 113 (04) 237-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Engström AE, Granfeldt H, Seybold-Epting W. et al. Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a three-center experience. Minerva Cardioangiol 2013; 61 (05) 539-546
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 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 (09) 2072-2079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Griffith BP, Anderson MB, Samuels LE, Pae Jr WE, Naka Y, Frazier OH. The RECOVER I: a multicenter prospective study of Impella 5.0/LD for postcardiotomy circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145 (02) 548-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lima B, Kale P, Gonzalez-Stawinski GV, Kuiper JJ, Carey S, Hall SA. Effectiveness and safety of the Impella 5.0 as a bridge to cardiac transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device. Am J Cardiol 2016; 117 (10) 1622-1628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bernhardt AM, Zipfel S, Reiter B. et al. Impella 5.0 therapy as a bridge-to-decision option for patients on extracorporeal life support with unclear neurological outcomes. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 56 (06) 1031-1036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Seese L, Hickey G, Keebler ME. et al. Direct bridging to cardiac transplantation with the surgically implanted Impella 5.0 device. Clin Transplant 2020; 34 (03) e13818
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M. et al. Concomitant implantation of Impella® on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 2017; 19 (03) 404-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Patel SM, Lipinski J, Al-Kindi SG. et al. Simultaneous venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous left ventricular decompression therapy with Impella is associated with improved outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock. ASAIO J 2019; 65 (01) 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C. et al. Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: the prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34 (12) 1549-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Yan I, Grahn H, Blankenberg S, Westermann D. Right ventricular temporal assist device for cardiac recompensation. ESC Heart Fail 2017; 4 (03) 376-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Pieri M, Pappalardo F. Impella RP in the treatment of right ventricular failure: what we know and where we go. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2018; 32 (05) 2339-2343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kuchibhotla S, Esposito ML, Breton C. et al. Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6 (10) e006670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Truby LK, Takeda K, Mauro C. et al. Incidence and implications of left ventricular distention during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. ASAIO J 2017; 63 (03) 257-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M. et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97 (02) 610-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Grant Jr C, Richards JB, Frakes M, Cohen J, Wilcox SR. ECMO and right ventricular failure: review of the literature. J Intensive Care Med 2021; 36 (03) 352-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar