Advertisement

Temporary Circulatory Support Devices

  • Gerin R. StevensEmail author
  • Brian Lima
Chapter
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices has expanded over the last decade to include use during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention or ablation procedures and to support patients in cardiogenic shock. The choice of device to implant depends upon the anticipated duration of support, the need for uni- or biventricular support, the potential for recovery and candidacy for a fully implantable left ventricular assist device and/or cardiac transplantation. Typically, these are devices used from hours to days or weeks, depending upon the clinical scenario. This chapter will provide an overview of temporary MCS devices, including Impella® (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA), TandemHeart™ (CardiacAssist, Inc. dba TandemLife, Pittsburgh, PA), and CentriMag™ (Abbott Labs, Lake Bluff, IL, USA), describing advantages as well as adverse events associated with each strategy.

Keywords

CentriMag™ Impella® Left ventricular assist device TandemHeart™ Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices 

References

  1. 1.
    Reynolds HR, Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation. 2008;117:686–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, Lessard D, Yarzebski J. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation. 2009;119:1211–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman JS. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:156–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL, et al. Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119:845–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allender JE, Reed BN, Foster JL, et al. Pharmacologic considerations in the management of patients receiving left ventricular percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Pharmacotherapy. 2017;37:1272–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 US experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:91–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, Henriques JPS, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3523–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the protect ii study. Circulation. 2012;126:1717–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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;52:1584–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O'Neill WW, Grines C, Schreiber T, et al. Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (amics) supported with the impella device. Am Heart J. 2018;202:33–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Esposito ML, Zhang Y, Qiao X, et al. Left ventricular unloading before reperfusion promotes functional recovery after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:501–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kapur NK, Qiao X, Paruchuri V, et al. Mechanical pre-conditioning with acute circulatory support before reperfusion limits infarct size in acute myocardial infarction. JACC Heart Fail. 2015;3:873–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lima B, Kale P, Gonzalez-Stawinski GV, Kuiper JJ, Carey S, Hall SA. 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(10):1622–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;37:100–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheung AW, White CW, Davis MK, Freed DH. Short-term mechanical circulatory support for recovery from acute right ventricular failure: clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:794–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C, et al. Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: the prospective recover right study of the impella rp device. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1549–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuchibhotla S, Esposito ML, Breton C, et al. Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(10):pii: e006670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller MA, Dukkipati SR, Chinitz JS, et al. Percutaneous hemodynamic support with impella 2.5 during scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation (permit 1). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2013;6:151–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reddy YM, Chinitz L, Mansour M, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in ventricular tachycardia ablation: multicenter experience. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2014;7:244–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thiele H, Lauer B, Hambrecht R, Boudriot E, Cohen HA, Schuler G. Reversal of cardiogenic shock by percutaneous left atrial-to-femoral arterial bypass assistance. Circulation. 2001;104:2917–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O'Neill WW, TandemHeart Investigators G. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the tandemheart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 2006;152:469 e461–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, Idelchik GM, Loyalka P. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:688–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith L, Peters A, Mazimba S, Ragosta M, Taylor AM. Outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with tandemheart((r)) percutaneous ventricular assist device: importance of support indication and definitive therapies as determinants of prognosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;92:1173–81.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27650.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruckner BA, Jacob LP, Gregoric ID, et al. Clinical experience with the tandemheart percutaneous ventricular assist device as a bridge to cardiac transplantation. Tex Heart Inst J. 2008;35:447–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Atiemo AD, Conte JV, Heldman AW. Resuscitation and recovery from acute right ventricular failure using a percutaneous right ventricular assist device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:78–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Giesler GM, Gomez JS, Letsou G, Vooletich M, Smalling RW. Initial report of percutaneous right ventricular assist for right ventricular shock secondary to right ventricular infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:263–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kiernan MS, Krishnamurthy B, Kapur NK. Percutaneous right ventricular assist via the internal jugular vein in cardiogenic shock complicating an acute inferior myocardial infarction. J Invasive Cardiol. 2010;22:E23–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ravichandran AK, Baran DA, Stelling K, Cowger JA, Salerno CT. Outcomes with the tandem protek duo dual-lumen percutaneous right ventricular assist device. ASAIO J. 2018;64:570–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Borisenko O, Wylie G, Payne J, Bjessmo S, Smith J, Yonan N, Firmin R. Thoratec centrimag for temporary treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock or severe cardiopulmonary insufficiency: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies. ASAIO J. 2014;60:487–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bhama JK, Bansal U, Winger DG, et al. Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;156:1885–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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 assocation, 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 Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:e7–e26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gilotra NA, Stevens GR. Temporary mechanical circulatory support: a review of the options, indications, and outcomes. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2014;8(Suppl 1):75–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nagpal AD, Singal RK, Arora RC, Lamarche Y. Temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiac critical care: a state of the art review and algorithm for device selection. Can J Cardiol. 2017;33:110–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Advanced Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplant Program, Department of Cardiology, North Shore University HospitalNorthwell HealthManhassetUSA
  2. 2.Advanced Heart Failure and Cardiac Transplant Program, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, North Shore University HospitalNorthwell HealthManhassetUSA

Personalised recommendations