Percutaneous mechanical support devices have been used widely in clinical practice. The first use of mechanical support was in the 1960s with the intra-aortic balloon pump. This device had seen wide use as it was relatively small and easy to place; however, it offered limited support, augmenting cardiac output by only 0.5 L/min. Until recently, percutaneous options for mechanical support have been limited until the advent of the percutaneously inserted axial flow pump ventricular assist device.
The percutaneously inserted ventricular assist device (LVD) is a nonpulsatile axial flow pump that crosses the aortic valve and pumps blood from the left ventricle (LV) to the aorta. The FDA has approved percutaneously inserted LVD for partial circulatory support since 2008. There are multiple different types of percutaneously inserted LVD that provide different levels of support. A percutaneously inserted LVD that provides a maximum flow rate of 2.5 L/min first device approved. Another percutaneously inserted LVD a maximum rate of 5 L/min for full circulatory support, however requiring surgical cut down for implantation. Finally, an intermediate level device was developed to offer an intermediate level of support of 3.0 to 4.0 L/min and can be placed percutaneously.
The percutaneously inserted LVD has impactful effects on the hemodynamic by decreasing the load on the left ventricle and myocardial oxygen consumption, subsequently improving cardiac output and reducing left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, leading to improvement in the coronary perfusion and systemic mean arterial pressure. Additionally, by improving forward output, percutaneously inserted LVD reduces left atrial pressures leading to right ventricle afterload reduction.
Other variations of the percutaneously implanted assist devices have since undergone development to aid providing mechanical circulatory support. The percutaneously inserted right ventricle assist device (RVD) was designed to be used in right ventricular (RV) failure and is a 22 french nonpulsatile axial flow pump mounted on an 11 Fr catheter and positioned via femoral venous access. The inflow of percutaneously inserted right ventricle assist device (RVD) is placed in the inferior vena cava and the outflow in the pulmonary artery and can provide up 4 L/min flow to help support a failing RV.
Through single femoral arterial access, the percutaneously inserted LVD crosses the aortic valve in a retrograde fashion with the inflow placed in the left ventricle and the outflow in the ascending aorta.
While the percutaneously inserted RVD requires femoral venous access, the device advanced and positioned across the tricuspid and pulmonary and ejects blood from the inferior vena cava to the pulmonary artery.
In the presence of one or more of the mentioned contraindications, another modality of mechanical circulatory support should be considered.
Interventional cardiologists place low flow, and intermediate flow assist devices percutaneously under fluoroscopy guidance. The high flow assist devices require surgical cutdown for placement and thus require positioning by cardiothoracic surgeons.
The low flow LVD (2.5 L/min) is a 12F pump mounted on a 9F catheter shaft, and advanced via femoral artery access and positioned across the aortic valve into the LV under fluoroscopic guidance. The high flow LVD (5.0 L/min) also mounts on the same 9F catheter shaft, and the pump is 21F in diameter. Due to its size, the high flow LVD requires a surgical cutdown via the axillary or femoral artery.
The 9F catheter includes the purge and the pressure lumens, and the proximal end of the 9F catheter consists of a hub for console cable attachment and side arms for purge solution and pressure monitoring tubing
The console allows the pump speed management (9 levels of performance) and displays the pressure difference between the inflow and the outflow.
Intravenous heparin is recommended during the device deployment to achieve activated clotting time between 250 to 500 seconds and activated clotting time between 160 to 180 seconds after the placement to prevent clots formation.
Percutaneously inserted LVDs (2.5 L/min) have been studied in comparison with the intra-aortic balloon pump. In ISAR-SHOCK trial, 25 patients with acute myocardial infarction and severely reduced LV function randomly allocated to either percutaneously inserted LVD or IABP arm, The cardiac index after 30 min of support was greater in patients with the percutaneously inserted LVD (2.5 L/min) compared with patients with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), however, no difference in the 30-days mortality between both arms.
In PROTECT II, A total of 448 high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomized, 223 to IABP, and 225 to the percutaneously inserted LVD (2.5 L/min). The study terminated early. There is no difference in the 30-day incidence of major adverse events for patients with IABP or percutaneously inserted LVD (2.5 L/min). However, on per-protocol analysis, improved outcomes were observed for percutaneously inserted LVD (2.5 L/min)-supported patients at 90 days driven mostly by a reduction in the need for repeat revascularization.
On the other hand, the RECOVER RIGHT trial studied prospectively 30 patients with refractory RV failure (12 patients with myocardial infarction and 18 patients after cardiac surgery). It demonstrated the safety and efficacy of percutaneously inserted RVD in improving the central venous pressure and the cardiac index immediately after activation. The overall survival in the trial at 30 days was 73.3%.
The initiation of mechanical circulatory support therapy (whether temporarily or destination therapy left ventricular assist device) requires an interprofessional team of different health care professionals including and not limited to: cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, nurse coordinators, social worker, and palliative care, all sharing their findings, monitoring as appropriate, and making adjustments to the treatment plan as conditions indicate. This interprofessional collaboration will lead to better patient outcomes when using these implantable devices. [Level 5]
Early identification of the need for mechanical circulatory support may improve outcomes. The implementation of a cardiogenic shock team (multidisciplinary team) is recommended for early diagnosis, structured protocols, risk stratification and, early application of the appropriate mechanical circulatory support device is recommended. [Level 3, Level 2]
|||Schrage B,Ibrahim K,Loehn T,Werner N,Sinning JM,Pappalardo F,Pieri M,Skurk C,Lauten A,Landmesser U,Westenfeld R,Horn P,Pauschinger M,Eckner D,Twerenbold R,Nordbeck P,Salinger T,Abel P,Empen K,Busch MC,Felix SB,Sieweke JT,Møller JE,Pareek N,Hill J,MacCarthy P,Bergmann MW,Henriques JPS,Möbius-Winkler S,Schulze PC,Ouarrak T,Zeymer U,Schneider S,Blankenberg S,Thiele H,Schäfer A,Westermann D, Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation. 2019 Mar 5; [PubMed PMID: 30586755]|
|||Basra SS,Loyalka P,Kar B, Current status of percutaneous ventricular assist devices for cardiogenic shock. Current opinion in cardiology. 2011 Nov; [PubMed PMID: 21926617]|
|||Naidu SS, Novel percutaneous cardiac assist devices: the science of and indications for hemodynamic support. Circulation. 2011 Feb 8; [PubMed PMID: 21300961]|
|||Rihal CS,Naidu SS,Givertz MM,Szeto WY,Burke JA,Kapur NK,Kern M,Garratt KN,Goldstein JA,Dimas V,Tu T, 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. 2015 May 19; [PubMed PMID: 25861963]|
|||Glazier JJ,Kaki A, The Impella Device: Historical Background, Clinical Applications and Future Directions. The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc. 2019 Jun; [PubMed PMID: 31384109]|
|||Anderson MB,Goldstein J,Milano C,Morris LD,Kormos RL,Bhama J,Kapur NK,Bansal A,Garcia J,Baker JN,Silvestry S,Holman WL,Douglas PS,O'Neill W, Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: The prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation. 2015 Dec; [PubMed PMID: 26681124]|
|||Pieri M,Pappalardo F, Impella RP in the Treatment of Right Ventricular Failure: What We Know and Where We Go. Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. 2018 Oct; [PubMed PMID: 30093192]|
|||Martinez CA,Singh V,Heldman AW,O'Neill WW, Emergent use of retrograde left ventricular support in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography [PubMed PMID: 22888042]|
|||Miller MA,Dukkipati SR,Chinitz JS,Koruth JS,Mittnacht AJ,Napolitano C,d'Avila A,Reddy VY, Percutaneous hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 during scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation (PERMIT 1). Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology. 2013 Feb; [PubMed PMID: 23255277]|
|||Lemaire A,Anderson MB,Lee LY,Scholz P,Prendergast T,Goodman A,Lozano AM,Spotnitz A,Batsides G, The Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2014 Jan; [PubMed PMID: 24090575]|
|||Lauten A,Engström AE,Jung C,Empen K,Erne P,Cook S,Windecker S,Bergmann MW,Klingenberg R,Lüscher TF,Haude M,Rulands D,Butter C,Ullman B,Hellgren L,Modena MG,Pedrazzini G,Henriques JP,Figulla HR,Ferrari M, Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circulation. Heart failure. 2013 Jan; [PubMed PMID: 23212552]|
|||Seyfarth M,Sibbing D,Bauer I,Fröhlich G,Bott-Flügel L,Byrne R,Dirschinger J,Kastrati A,Schömig A, 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. 2008 Nov 4; [PubMed PMID: 19007597]|
|||O'Neill WW,Kleiman NS,Moses J,Henriques JP,Dixon S,Massaro J,Palacios I,Maini B,Mulukutla S,Dzavík V,Popma J,Douglas PS,Ohman M, 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 Oct 2; [PubMed PMID: 22935569]|
|||Kapur NK,Esposito ML,Bader Y,Morine KJ,Kiernan MS,Pham DT,Burkhoff D, Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Acute Right Ventricular Failure. Circulation. 2017 Jul 18; [PubMed PMID: 28716832]|
|||Doll JA,Ohman EM,Patel MR,Milano CA,Rogers JG,Wohns DH,Kapur NK,Rao SV, A team-based approach to patients in cardiogenic shock. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography [PubMed PMID: 26526563]|
|||Tehrani BN,Truesdell AG,Sherwood MW,Desai S,Tran HA,Epps KC,Singh R,Psotka M,Shah P,Cooper LB,Rosner C,Raja A,Barnett SD,Saulino P,deFilippi CR,Gurbel PA,Murphy CE,O'Connor CM, Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019 Apr 9; [PubMed PMID: 30947919]|