Pieri Marina, Contri Rachele, Winterton Dario, Montorfano Matteo, Colombo Antonio, Zangrillo Alberto, De Bonis Michele, Pappalardo Federico
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Department of Interventional Cardiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2015 Oct 14;15:126. doi: 10.1186/s12872-015-0119-9.
The treatment of cardiogenic shock with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is attractive: however, at present it is not clear which is the best strategy, as no survival benefit has been demonstrated for any device as single therapy. Aim of this study is to describe the role of percutaneous Impella in a comprehensive MCS program.
Observational study on 22 patients supported with the Impella device in our hospital from May 2013 to June 2014.
Four patients (18 %) were treated with Impella alone, 8 patients (36 %) were treated with Impella and IABP, 6 patients (27 %) with Impella and VA ECMO, and 4 patients (18 %) with Impella, IABP and VA ECMO. The cause of cardiogenic shock was myocardial infarction (CSMI) in 9 patients (41 %), postcardiotomic cardiogenic shock in 5 (23 %), and a miscellaneous of other causes in the remaining 8 (36 %). Eight Impella devices (36 %) were placed under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance, while 14 (64 %) under fluoroscopy. The device was removed with manual compression at bedside and no vascular complications were observed. Duration of Impella support was 107 (54-141) hours and duration of ventilation was 48 (14-92) hours. Hemolysis occurred in 6 patients (27 %), while major bleeding in 4 patients (18 %). Survival was 73 %: 13 patients (58 %) showed recovery of cardiac function; 1 patient (5 %) was bridged to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, 1 patient (5 %) to heart transplantation (HTx) and 1 patient (5 %) received a BiVAD and was eventually bridged to HTx.
Our data suggest that a multi-device approach, encompassing active LV support with Impella, is safe and can significantly improve survival in patients with cardiogenic shock.
经皮机械循环支持(MCS)治疗心源性休克具有吸引力;然而,目前尚不清楚哪种是最佳策略,因为尚无任何单一设备被证明具有生存获益。本研究的目的是描述经皮Impella在综合MCS方案中的作用。
对2013年5月至2014年6月在我院接受Impella设备支持的22例患者进行观察性研究。
4例患者(18%)仅接受Impella治疗,8例患者(36%)接受Impella和IABP治疗,6例患者(27%)接受Impella和VA ECMO治疗,4例患者(18%)接受Impella、IABP和VA ECMO治疗。心源性休克的病因包括9例(41%)心肌梗死(CSMI)、5例(23%)心脏术后心源性休克以及其余8例(36%)其他多种病因。8台Impella设备(36%)在经食管超声心动图引导下置入,而14台(64%)在荧光透视引导下置入。该设备在床边通过手动压迫移除,未观察到血管并发症。Impella支持时间为107(54 - 141)小时,通气时间为48(14 - 92)小时。6例患者(27%)发生溶血,4例患者(18%)发生大出血。生存率为73%:13例患者(58%)心功能恢复;1例患者(5%)过渡到左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入,1例患者(5%)过渡到心脏移植(HTx),1例患者(5%)接受双心室辅助装置(BiVAD)并最终过渡到HTx。
我们的数据表明,包括使用Impella进行主动左心室支持的多设备方法是安全的,并且可以显著提高心源性休克患者的生存率。