Microaxial LVADs are increasingly used for cardiogenic shock treatment. We compared the short-term outcome of patients supported with different microaxial devices for cardiogenic shock. A retrospective propensity score-adjusted analysis was performed in cardiogenic shock patients treated with either the Impella CP (n=64) or the Impella 5.0/5.5 (n=62) at two tertiary cardiac care centers between 1/14 and 12/19. Patients in the Impella CP group were significantly older (69.6±10.7 vs 58.7±11.9 years, p=0.001), more likely in an INTERMACS level 1 (76.6% vs 50%, p=0.003) and post CPR (36% vs 13%, p=0.006). The unadjusted 30-day survival was significantly higher in Impella 5.0/5.5 group (58% vs 36%, p=0.021, odds ratio (OR) for 30-day survival on Impella 5.0/5.5 was 3.68 (95% CI [1.46-9.90], p=0.0072). After adjustment, the 30-day survival was similar for both devices (OR 1.23, 95% CI [0.34-4.18], p=0.744). Lactate levels above 8 mmol/L and preoperative CPR were associated with a significant mortality increase in both cohorts (OR=10.7, 95% CI [3.45-47.34], p<0.001; OR=13.2, 95% CI [4.28-57.89], p<0.001, respectively). Both Impella devices offer a similar effect with regards to survival in cardiogenic shock patients. Preoperative CPR or lactate levels exceeding 8 mmol/L immediately before implantation have a poor prognosis on Impella CP and Impella 5.0/5.5.
Abstract Systemic infections and chronic graft rejection represent common causes of mortality and morbidity in heart transplant patients. In severe cases, cardiogenic shock (CS) may occur and require hemodynamic stabilization with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tempMCS).1 Under these devastating circumstances, treatment of sequelae of left ventricular dysfunction, such as secondary mitral regurgitation (MR) is challenging, especially when surgical repair is deemed futile. In non-transplant patients, interventional mitral valve repair strategies such as the MitraClip system (Abbott Cardiovascular, Plymouth, MN, USA) have been used to successfully treat secondary MR and allow for weaning from tempMCS.2 We report about the first patient in whom profound cardiogenic shock after heart transplantation was stabilized with tempMCS followed by interventional elimination of secondary MR.