Use of impella ventricular assist device in patients with severe coronary artery disease presenting with cardiac arrest

International Journal of Angiology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 163-166

  Mukku, Venkatak ^a   Cai, Qiangjun ^a   Gilani, Syed ^a   Fujise, Ken ^a   Barbagelata, Alejandro ^a  

^a University of Texas Medical Branch School of Medicine   (United States)

Author keywords

cardiac; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; catheterization; coronary artery disease; intra aortic balloon pump; percutaneous coronary intervention; ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; ventricular assist devices

Indexed keywords

ADRENALIN; ATROPINE; GLUCONATE CALCIUM;

AGED; CASE REPORT; CLINICAL FEATURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFECT; FEMALE; HEART ARREST; HEART HEMODYNAMICS; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEMODYNAMIC MONITORING; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESUSCITATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT DURATION;

EID: 84865978094     PISSN: 10611711     EISSN: 16155939     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1324736     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Henriques JPS, 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 7 990 992
2. Burzotta F, Paloscia L, Trani C., et al. Feasibility and long-term safety of elective Impella-assisted high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a pilot two-centre study. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown): 2008; 9 10 1004 1010
3. 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 4 459 468
4. 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
5. Alasnag MA, Gardi DO, Elder M., et al. Use of the Impella 2.5 for prophylactic circulatory support during elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Cardiovasc Revasc Med: 2011; 12 5 299 303
6. Maini B, Naidu SS, Mulukutla S., et al. Real world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: The Uspella registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: 2011; 78 8 62
7. Valgimigli M, Steendijk P, Sianos G, Onderwater E, Serruys PW. Left ventricular unloading and concomitant total cardiac output increase by the use of percutaneous Impella Recover LP 2.5 assist device during high-risk coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: 2005; 65 2 263 267
8. Meyns B, Dens J, Sergeant P, Herijgers P, Daenen W, Flameng W. Initial experiences with the Impella device in patients with cardiogenic shock - Impella support for cardiogenic shock. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg: 2003; 51 6 312 317
9. Baughman KL, Jarcho JA. Bridge to lifecardiac mechanical support. N Engl J Med: 2007; 357 9 846 849
10. Idelchik GM, Loyalka P, Kar B. Percutaneous ventricular assist device placement during active cardiopulmonary resuscitation for severe refractory cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Tex Heart Inst J: 2007; 34 2 204 208
11. Mukku VK, Cai Q, Gilani S, Fujise K, Barbagelata A. Use of Impella Ventricular Assist Device in Patients with Severe Coronary Artery Disease Presenting with Cardiac Arrest. Circulation: 2011; 124 A50
12. Gupta A, Allaqaband S, Bajwa T. Combined use of Impella device and intra-aortic balloon pump to improve survival in a patient in profound cardiogenic shock post cardiac arrest. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: 2009; 74 6 975 976
13. Dens J, Meyns B, Hilgers RD., et al. First experience with the Impella Recover(R) LP 2.5 micro axial pump in patients with cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk revascularisation. Euro Intervention: 2006; 2 1 84 90
14. Windecker S. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care: 2007; 13 5 521 527
15. Lauten A, Engström AE, Jung C., et al. Percutaneous left ventricular support with the impella 2.5 in cardiogenic shockresults of the impella EUROSHOCK-registry. In Press
16. PROTECT II: a prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial of the Impella Recover LP 2.5 system versus intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients undergoing non emergent high risk PCI,o" Abiomed Inc.
17. Palacios IF. Left ventricular assistant device impella 2.5 usage for patients undergoing high-risk PCI. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: 2012; 79 7 1135 1137
18. Sibbald M, DŽavík V. Severe hemolysis associated with use of the impella LP 2.5 mechanical assist device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv: 2012; 10.1002/ccd.24280 [Epub ahead of print]
19. Dixon SR, Henriques JPS, Mauri L., 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 Cardiovasc Interv: 2009; 2 2 91 96
20. Mueller XM, Boone Y, Augstburger M, Horisberger J, von Segesser LK. Bi-ventricular axial micropump: impact on blood cell integrity. Swiss Surg: 2001; 7 5 213 217