Successful bridge to recovery using a microaxial blood pump in a patient with electrical storm and cardiogenic shock

  • A. Henning
  • J. Schreieck
  • R. Riessen
  • M. Gawaz
  • A.E. May
Kasuistik

Abstract

A 59-year-old patient with dilated cardiomyopathy and incessant ventricular tachycardia leading to progressive cardiogenic shock is presented. Due to hemodynamic instability, high dose catecholamines were required in addition to the implantation of an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), which, however, appeared to further augment the frequency and duration of ventricular tachycardias. The implantation of a microaxial blood pump allowed catecholamine administration to be terminated, thereby, ending this vicious circle of catecholamine-driven electrical storm. Within 5 days, the patient was hemodynamically stabilized and kidney and liver function recovered with the support of intensive antiarrhythmic therapy (amiodarone, mexiletine, sotalol). During a 24-month follow-up, the patient had no further ICD shocks and no rehospitalization was required for treatment of congestive heart failure.

Keywords

Cardiogenic shock Ventricular tachycardia Dilated cardiomyopathy Catecholamines  

Mikroaxiale Blutpumpe als erfolgreiche“bridge to recovery” bei einem Patienten im elektrischen Sturm und kardiogenen Schock

Zusammenfassung

Wir berichten über den Fall eines 59-jährigen Patienten, der auf dem Boden einer dilatativen Kardiomyopathie im elektrischen Sturm zunehmend in einen kardiogenen Schock geriet. Aufgrund der hämodynamischen Instabilität war eine hochdosierte Katecholamingabe notwendig sowie die Implantation einer intraaortalen Ballonpumpe (IABP). Unter dieser Therapie kam es jedoch zu einer Zunahme der Häufigkeit sowie der Dauer der ventrikulären Tachykardien. Erst die Implantation einer mikroaxialen Blutpumpe ermöglichte es uns, die Katecholamine auszuschleichen und damit den durch diese aufrechterhaltenen Teufelskreis zu durchbrechen. Innerhalb von 5 Tagen war der Patient unter zusätzlichem Einsatz einer intensiven antiarrhythmischen Therapie (Amiodarone, Mexiletin, Sotalol) hämodynamisch stabil; Leber- und Nierenfunktion erholten sich. Über ein Follow-up von 24 Monaten traten keine weiteren ICD-Schockabgaben auf, und es war keine weitere Hospitalisierung auf dem Boden der Herzinsuffizienz notwendig.

Schlüsselwörter

Kardialer Schock Kammertachykardie Dilatative Kardiomyopathie Katecholamine 

References

  1. 1.
    Siegenthaler MP, Brehm K, Strecker T et al (2004) The Impella recover microaxial left ventricular assist device reduces mortality for postcardiotomy failure: a three-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 127:812PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jurmann MJ, Siniawski H, Erb M et al (2004) Initial experience with miniature axial flow ventricular assist devices for postcardiotomy heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg 77:1642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colombo T, Garatti A, Vitali E et al (2003) First successful bridge to recovery with the Impella recover 100 left ventricular assist device for fulminant acute myocarditis. Ital Heart J 4(9):642–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomopoulou S, Manginas A, Cokkinos DV (2008) Initial experience with the Impella recover LP 2.5 micro-axial pump in patients undergoing high-risk coronary angioplasty. Hellenic J Cardiol 49(6):382–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Schömig A et al (2008) 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 52(19):1584–1588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dixon SR, Henriques JP, O’Neill WW et al (2009) 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 2(2):91–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mueller XM, Boone Y, Segesser LK von et al (2001) Biventricular axial micropump: impact on blood cell integrity. Swiss Surg 7(5):213–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fishberger SB, Asnes JD, Cleman MW et al (2010) Percutaneous right ventricular support during catheter ablation of intra-atrial reentrant tachycardia in an adult with a mustard baffle. A novel use of the Impella device. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 29(1):69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abuissa H, Roshan J, Asirvatham SJ et al (2010) Use of the Impella microaxial blood pump for ablation of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 21(4):458–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JP et al (2007) Effects of left ventricular unloading by impella recover LP 2.5 on coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 70(4):532–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henriques JPS, Remmelink M, Baan J et al (2006) 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 97(7):990–992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dixon SR, Henriques JPS, Mauri L et al (2009) 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2:91–96Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engström A, Sjauw K, Henriques J et al (2011) Long-term safety and sustained left ventricular recovery: long-term results of percutaneous left ventricular support with Impella LP2.5 in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention 6(7):860–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Urban & Vogel, Muenchen 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Henning
    • 1
  • J. Schreieck
    • 1
  • R. Riessen
    • 1
  • M. Gawaz
    • 1
  • A.E. May
    • 1
  1. 1.Medizinische KlinikUniversitaetsklinikum TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations