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

Journal of Invasive Cardiology

Volumn 28, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 467-472

  Schroeter, Marco Robin ^a   Köhler, Herdis ^a   Wachter, Astrid ^b   Bleckmann, Annalen ^b   Hasenfuß, Gerd ^a   Schillinger, Wolfgang ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER GÖTTINGEN   (Germany)

^c Albert Schweitzer Clinic Northeim   (Germany)

Author keywords

acute coronary syndromes; acute heart failure; cardiogenic shock; coronary heart disease; Impella device

Indexed keywords

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ADULT; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; BODY MASS; BODY SIZE; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; COHORT ANALYSIS; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; HEART ARREST; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEART RATE; HEMOLYSIS; HEPARIN INDUCED THROMBOCYTOPENIA; HUMAN; LEFT CORONARY ARTERY; LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE; LENGTH OF STAY; LONG TERM SURVIVAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RIGHT CORONARY ARTERY; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; THROMBOCYTOPENIA; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; AGED; COMPLICATION; EARLY INTERVENTION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; GERMANY; HEART ASSIST DEVICE; HEMODYNAMICS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RISK FACTOR; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TIME TO TREATMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; AGED; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; EARLY MEDICAL INTERVENTION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEART-ASSIST DEVICES; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECTS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; RISK FACTORS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TIME-TO-TREATMENT;

EID: 85002863743     PISSN: 10423931     EISSN: 15572501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Ouweneel DM, Henriques JP. Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: current indications and recommendations. Heart. 2012; 98: 1246-1254
2. Sjauw KD, Remmelink M, Baan J Jr, et al. Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51: 1044-1046
3. Engstrom 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: 2072-2079
4. Dixon SR, Henriques JP, 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: 91-96
5. Henriques JP, Ouweneel DM, Naidu SS, et al. Evaluating the learning curve in the prospective randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-Aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a prespecified subanalysis of the PROTECT II study. Am Heart J. 2014; 167: 472-479.e475
6. Lauten A, Engstrom 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: 23-30
7. 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 Intervent Cardiol. 2014; 27: 1-11
8. Lemaire A, Anderson MB, Lee LY, et al. The Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 97: 133-138
9. 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: 312-317
10. 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: 1584-1588
11. TRIUMPH Investigators, Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, et al. Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007; 297: 1657-1666
12. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra-Aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2013; 382: 1638-1645
13. Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman JS. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35: 156-167
14. Asaad N, El-Menyar A, AlHabib KF, et al. Initial heart rate and cardiovascular outcomes in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome. Acute Card Care. 2014; 16: 49-56
15. Bohm M, Reil JC, Deedwania P, Kim JB, Borer JS. Resting heart rate: risk indicator and emerging risk factor in cardiovascular disease. Am J Med. 2015; 128: 219-228
16. Mehta RH, Califf RM, Yang Q, et al. Impact of initial heart rate and systolic blood pressure on relation of age and mortality among fibrinolytic-Treated patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting with cardiogenic shock. Am J Med. 2007; 99: 793-796
17. Anderson ML, Peterson ED, Peng SA, et al. Differences in the profile, treatment, and prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock by myocardial infarction classification: a report from NCDR. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013; 6: 708-715. Epub 2013 Nov 12