Device profile of the Impella 5.0 and 5.5 system for mechanical circulatory support for patients with cardiogenic shock: overview of its safety and efficacy

References

• Den Uil Ca, Akin S, Jewbali LS, et al. Short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:14–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stretch R, Sauer CM, Yuh DD, et al. National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1407–1415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, et al. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:688–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandawat A, Rao SV. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(5): e004337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, et al. 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 association, 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). J Card Fail. 2015;21:499–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ravichandran AK, Baran DA, Stelling K, et al. Outcomes with the tandem protek duo dual-lumen percutaneous right ventricular assist device. ASAIO J. 2018;64:570–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ELSO. ELSO International Summary–July 2018., 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Schrage B, Becher PM, Bernhardt A, et al. Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an international, multicenter cohort study. Circulation. 2020;142:2095–2106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John R, Liao K, Lietz K, et al. Experience with the Levitronix CentriMag circulatory support system as a bridge to decision in patients with refractory acute cardiogenic shock and multisystem organ failure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:351–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aziz TA, Singh G, Popjes E, et al. Initial experience with CentriMag extracorporal membrane oxygenation for support of critically ill patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:66–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John R, Long JW, Massey HT, et al. Outcomes of a multicenter trial of the Levitronix CentriMag ventricular assist system for short-term circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:932–939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batsides G, Massaro J, Cheung A, et al. Outcomes of impella 5.0 in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovations (Phila). 2018;13:254–260.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bernhardt AM, Zipfel S, Reiter B, et al. Impella 5.0 therapy as a bridge-to-decision option for patients on extracorporeal life support with unclear neurological outcomes. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;56:1031–1036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lima B, Kale P, Gonzalez-Stawinski GV, et al. Effectiveness and safety of the impella 5.0 as a bridge to cardiac transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:1622–1628.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschope C, Van Linthout S, Klein O, et al. Mechanical unloading by fulminant myocarditis: LV-IMPELLA, ECMELLA, BI-PELLA, and PROPELLA Concepts. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2019;12:116–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin RT, Radovancevic B, Duncan JM, et al. Management of patients supported on the hemopump cardiac assist system. Tex Heart Inst J. 1992;19:81–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merhige ME, Smalling RW, Cassidy D, et al. Effect of the hemopump left ventricular assist device on regional myocardial perfusion and function. reduction of ischemia during coronary occlusion. Circulation. 1989;80:III158–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jurmann MJ, Siniawski H, Erb M, et al. Initial experience with miniature axial flow ventricular assist devices for postcardiotomy heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:1642–1647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal A, Bhama JK, Patel R, et al. Using the minimally invasive impella 5.0 via the right subclavian artery cutdown for acute on chronic decompensated heart failure as a bridge to decision. Ochsner J. 2016;16:210–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doersch KM, Tong CW, Gongora E, et al. Temporary left ventricular assist device through an axillary access is a promising approach to improve outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock patients. ASAIO J. 2015;61:253–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mueller M, Potapov E, Krabatsch T. Usefulness of a temporary endovascular left ventricular assist system as a bridge to facilitate treatment of mediastinitis associated with a permanent device. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38:476–478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall SA, Uriel N, Carey SA, et al. Use of a percutaneous temporary circulatory support device as a bridge to decision during acute decompensation of advanced heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2018;37:100–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung JS, Emerson D, Ramzy D, et al. A new paradigm in mechanical circulatory support: 100-patient experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109:1370–1377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afana M, Altawil M, Basir M, et al. Transcaval access for the emergency delivery of 5.0 liters per minute mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;97:555–564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramzy D, Soltesz E, Anderson M. New surgical circulatory support system outcomes. ASAIO J. 2020;66:746–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhardt AM, Potapov E, Schibilsky D, et al. First in man evaluation of a novel circulatory support device: early experience with the Impella 5.5 after CE mark approval in Germany. J Heart Lung Transplant 2021 850–855 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2021.04.001
   Google Scholar
• Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Seyfarth M, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump for treating cardiogenic shock: meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:358–360.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertoglio L, Katsarou M, Scandroglio M, et al. Surgical transaxillary placement of the Impella 5.0 ventricular assist device. J Card Surg. 2019;34:92–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boll G, Fischer A, Kapur NK, et al. Right axillary artery conduit is a safe and reliable access for implantation of impella 5.0 Microaxial pump. Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;54:54–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaudard P, Mourad M, Eliet J, et al. Management and outcome of patients supported with Impella 5.0 for refractory cardiogenic shock. Crit Care. 2015;19:363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith BP, Anderson MB, Samuels LE, et al. The RECOVER I: a multicenter prospective study of Impella 5.0/LD for postcardiotomy circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:548–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Lamarche Y, Kaan A, et al. Microaxial devices for ventricular failure: a multicentre, population-based experience. Can J Cardiol. 2011;27:725–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastroianni C, Bouabdallaoui N, Leprince P, et al. Short-term mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device for cardiogenic shock at la pitie-salpetriere. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017;6:87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monteagudo-Vela M, Panoulas V, Garcia-Saez D, et al. Outcomes of heart transplantation in patients bridged with Impella 5.0: comparison with native chest transplanted patients without preoperative mechanical circulatory support. Artif Organs. 2021;45:254–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nersesian G, Tschope C, Spillmann F, et al. Prediction of survival of patients in cardiogenic shock treated by surgically implanted Impella 5+ short-term left ventricular assist device. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020;31:475–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Guyader A, Pernot M, Delmas C, et al. Budget impact associated with the introduction of the impella 5.0((r)) mechanical circulatory support device for cardiogenic shock in France. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:53–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordan T, Critsinelis AC, Chen FY, et al. One-Year outcomes following heart transplantation under the new donor heart allocation system in the United States. Circ Heart Fail. 2021;14:e007754.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seese L, Hickey G, Keebler ME, et al. Direct bridging to cardiac transplantation with the surgically implanted Impella 5.0 device. Clin Transplant. 2020;34:e13818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyns B, Dens J, Sergeant P, et al. Initial experiences with the Impella device in patients with cardiogenic shock - Impella support for cardiogenic shock. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;51:312–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sibbald M, Dzavik V. Severe hemolysis associated with use of the Impella LP 2.5 mechanical assist device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:840–844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toggweiler S, Jamshidi P, Erne P. Functional mitral stenosis: a rare complication of the Impella assist device. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008;9:412–413.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karami M, Den Uil CA, Ouweneel DM, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020;9:164–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eulert-Grehn JJ, Starck C, Kempfert J, et al. ECMELLA 2.0: single arterial access technique for a staged approach in cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;111:e135–e137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Succar L, Sulaica EM, Donahue KR, et al. Management of anticoagulation with impella(R) percutaneous ventricular assist devices and review of new literature. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019;48:284–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nersesian G, Lewin D, Schoenrath F, et al. Percutaneous mitral valve repair assisted by a catheter-based circulatory support device in a heart transplant patient. J Card Surg. 2021; 36:3905–3909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith NJ, Ramamurthi A, Joyce LD, et al. Temporary mechanical circulatory support prevents the occurrence of a low-output state in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting: a case series. J Card Surg. 2021;36:864–871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahuja M, Ranka S, Chauhan K, et al. Rupture of papillary muscle and chordae tendinae complicating STEMI: a call for action. ASAIO J. 2021;67:907–916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahuja M, Schrage B, Westermann D, et al. Hemodynamic effects of mechanical circulatory support devices in ventricular septal defect. Circ Heart Fail. 2019;12:e005981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar