IMPELLA, Complications and Tolerance

Overview

Myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and devices like Impella® CP and Impella 5.0-5.5 are often used for hemodynamic support, either alone or combined with veno-arterial ECMO (ECMELLA). While recent studies suggest improved survival with Impella® in cardiogenic shock, complications remain common, particularly due to deep arterial access and the need for anticoagulation. Hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs) such as ischemia, bleeding (44%), hemolysis (32%), and stroke (13%) frequently occur. Achieving hemocompatibility between the patient's blood and the device is challenging, as pump flow, anticoagulation, and patient factors contribute to both thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications. Despite advances, further research is required to better understand and reduce these risks in clinical practice.

Detailed description

Myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. To provide hemodynamic support in these cases, intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices, such as Impella® CP and Impella 5.0-5.5, are frequently used, either alone in cardiogenic shock (CS) or in combination with veno-arterial ECMO (known as ECMELLA) for left ventricular unloading. Recent observational studies and randomized controlled trials have suggested improved survival rates with the use of Impella® in cardiogenic shock patients.

Despite the growing use of these devices, complications in clinical practice remain frequent. Due to the need for deep arterial access (14F for Impella CP and 21F for Impella 5.0) via femoral or axillary routes, as well as the necessity of anticoagulation, hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs) such as ischemic complications and bleeding are common, occurring in 18% and 44% of patients, respectively. Hemolysis has been reported in up to 32% of cases, while stroke affects up to 13%. Other less frequent complications include device deployment issues, pump thrombosis, implant site infections, and sepsis, all contributing to increased healthcare costs.

Achieving hemocompatibility between the patient's blood and the device remains a significant challenge despite advances in Impella technology. Balancing prothrombotic and prohemorrhagic forces at the blood/device interface is complex. This interface activates the coagulation cascade, generating a prothrombotic state, damaging von Willebrand multimers, and leading to hemolysis. The interplay of pump flow, pump speed, patient risk factors, and clinical management (anticoagulation) further complicates hemocompatibility, often resulting in thrombotic or bleeding events such as hemorrhagic stroke, circuit clots, or ischemic stroke.

Although the occurrence of HRAEs is well documented, particularly in the case of severe events like stroke, there is still an incomplete understanding of the factors driving these complications in modern clinical practice. Further research is needed to better delineate the risk factors and improve outcomes for patients receiving Impella support.

Interventions

• Device Impella (5, 5.5 or CP)
  Impella (5, 5.5 or CP) as an isolated circulatory support or combined with others Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support

Primary outcome measures

• Hemocompatibility related adverse events (HRAEs) [Time frame: From start of hospitalization until hospital discharge, assessed up to 3 month]

Secondary outcome measures (5)

• Early mortality [Time frame: From start of hospitalization until hospital discharge, assessed up to 3 month]
• Adverse events related to Impella devices [Time frame: From start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month]
• Duration of mechanical ventilation [Time frame: From start of hospitalization until hospital discharge, assessed up to 3 month]
• Lengh of stay [Time frame: From start of hospitalization until hospital discharge, assessed up to 3 month]
• Cardiac long-term project [Time frame: From start of hospitalization until hospital discharge assessed up to 3 month]

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria

• Adult patients admitted for cardiogenic shock supported by Impella (5, 5.5 or CP) between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2022 (as an isolated circulatory support or combined with others Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support)

Exclusion criteria

• Absence of Impella
• Impella 2.5
• Impella RP (right)

Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.

Healthy volunteers: No

Study design

Observational model

Cohort

Study locations

France · 1 center

• Montpellier university hospital — Montpellier

Publications

• Van Edom CJ, Gramegna M, Baldetti L, Beneduce A, Castelein T, Dauwe D, Frederiks P, Giustino G, Jacquemin M, Janssens SP, Panoulas VF, Poss J, Rosenberg A, Schaubroeck HAI, Schrage B, Tavazzi G, Vanassche T, Vercaemst L, Vlasselaers D, Vranckx P, Belohlavek J, Gorog DA, Huber K, Mebazaa A, Meyns B, Pappalardo F, Scandroglio AM, Stone GW, Westermann D, Chieffo A, Price S, Vandenbriele C. Management PMID 37495347
• Vandenbriele C, Arachchillage DJ, Frederiks P, Giustino G, Gorog DA, Gramegna M, Janssens S, Meyns B, Polzin A, Scandroglio M, Schrage B, Stone GW, Tavazzi G, Vanassche T, Vranckx P, Westermann D, Price S, Chieffo A. Anticoagulation for Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device-Supported Cardiogenic Shock: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 May 17;79(19):1949-1962. doi: 10.1016/j. PMID 35550692
• Philipson DJ, Cohen DJ, Fonarow GC, Ziaeian B. Analysis of Adverse Events Related to Impella Usage (from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience and National Inpatient Sample Databases). Am J Cardiol. 2021 Feb 1;140:91-94. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.10.056. Epub 2020 Nov 2. PMID 33147430
• Amin AP, Spertus JA, Curtis JP, Desai N, Masoudi FA, Bach RG, McNeely C, Al-Badarin F, House JA, Kulkarni H, Rao SV. The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support. Circulation. 2020 Jan 28;141(4):273-284. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044007. Epub 2019 Nov 17. PMID 31735078
• Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Mortazavi BJ, Hurley NC, Krumholz HM, Curtis JP, Berkowitz A, Masoudi FA, Messenger JC, Parzynski CS, Ngufor C, Girotra S, Amin AP, Shah ND, Desai NR. Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogeni PMID 32040163
• Moller JE, Engstrom T, Jensen LO, Eiskjaer H, Mangner N, Polzin A, Schulze PC, Skurk C, Nordbeck P, Clemmensen P, Panoulas V, Zimmer S, Schafer A, Werner N, Frydland M, Holmvang L, Kjaergaard J, Sorensen R, Lonborg J, Lindholm MG, Udesen NLJ, Junker A, Schmidt H, Terkelsen CJ, Christensen S, Christiansen EH, Linke A, Woitek FJ, Westenfeld R, Mobius-Winkler S, Wachtell K, Ravn HB, Lassen JF, Boesga PMID 38587239

Identifiers

NCT: NCT06644963 · 2024-08-120

Primary sources (government registries)

• ClinicalTrials.gov (US NIH)

View this study on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗