Interv Akut Kardiol. 2011;10(3):122-126

The use of Impella 2.5 in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention

Jan Pešek1, Ivo Bernat1, Jiří Koza1, Michal Šmíd1, Jakub Čech1, Vratislav Pechman1, Milan Hromádka1, Jiří Široký2, Vladimír Mikulenka2, Viktor Zlocha2, Tomáš Hájek2, Richard Rokyta1
1 Kardiologie, I. interní klinika a Oddělení kardiochirurgie FN Plzeň
2 Komplexní kardiovaskulární centrum FN Plzeň

The Impella 2.5 is the left ventricle assist device dedicated for short-term circulatory support up to five days. This device is introduced

transfemorally, across the aortic valve, used for expelling of blood from the left ventricle to ascending aorta up to 2,5 l/min. The

authors describe five case reports about the use of this circulatory support in one year periode (October 2009 to September 2010), in

cases of percutaneous coronary intervention with expected high-risk of periprocedural cardiac arrest. The patients were 4 men and 1

woman, age 58–73 years, with severe systolic left ventricular dysfunction, in which cardiac surgery was not indicated because of the high

perioperative risk. In one case, the percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in incipient cardiogenic shock. In two cases, the

coronary interventions were performed transradially. All patients had introduced a separate venous access for vasopresors administration

in case of eventual hypotension. The Impella-mediated blood flow was titrated according to the actual hemodynamic status. In four

cases, the percutaneous coronary intervention was successful, in one case emergency cardiac surgery for a coronary artery rupture with

unsuccessful graft-stent implantation was needed. The Impella device in this case was used throughout the whole perioperative period.

After the removal of Impella device, in one case pseudoaneurysm of femoral artery occured, it was solved by manual compression. In one

case, surgical treatment of access site bleeding during the multiorgan failure was necessary. During the first 24 hours after procedure

no patient died, within 30 days after procedure one patient died for recurrent ventricular fibrillation occured after transfer into regional

hospital. The other four patients were discharged home and are monitored in the outpatient department.

Keywords: high-risk PCI, LVAD, cardiac failure

Published: June 10, 2011  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Pešek J, Bernat I, Koza J, Šmíd M, Čech J, Pechman V, et al.. The use of Impella 2.5 in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Interv Akut Kardiol. 2011;10(3):122-126.
Download citation

References

  1. Lamarche Y, et al. Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010, in press. Go to original source...
  2. Siegenthaler MP, et al. The Impella Recover microaxial left ventricular assist device reduces mortality for postcardiotomy failure: A three-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg., 2004; 127: 812-822. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Andrade JG, et al. Facilitated cardiac recovery in fulminant myocarditis: pediatric use of the Impella LP 5.0 pump. J Heart Lung Transplant., 2010; 29: 96-97. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Patane F, et al. The use of Impella Recover in the treatment of post-infarction ventricular septal defect: A new case report. Int J Cardiol., 2010; 144: 313-315. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Dixon SR, 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 U. S. experience. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., 2009; 2: 91-96. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Sjauw KD, et al. Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device: the Europella registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009; 54: 2430-2434. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Briguori C, et al. Elective versus provisional intra-aortic balloon pumping in high-risk percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am. Heart. J. 2003; 145: 700-707. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Perera D, et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010; 304: 867-874. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Scholz KH, et al. Complications of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Eur. Heart J. 1998; 19: 458-465. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Trost JC, et al. Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2006; 97: 1391-1398. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Rokyta R jr., et al. Intraaortální balonková kontrapulsace v intenzivní kardiologické péči. Cor Vasa 2010; 52: 127-133. Go to original source...
  12. Harden WR, et al. Temporal relation between onset of cell anoxia and ischemic contractile failure: Myocardial ischemia and left ventricular failure in the isolated, perfused rabbit heart. Am. J. Cardiol, 1979; 44: 741-746. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Cheby JM, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur. Heart J. 2009; 30: 2102-2108. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00562016.
  15. Syed AI, et al. Prophylactic use of intra-aortic balloon pump for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: will the Impella LP 2.5 device show superiority in a clinical randomized study? Cardiovas. Revasc. Med. 2010; 11: 91-97. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Neuzil P, et al. Direct comparison of percutaneous circulatory support systems during specific haemodynamic conditions. Eur. Heart J. 2010; 12: F108.




Interventional Cardiology

Madam, Sir,
please be aware that the website on which you intend to enter, not the general public because it contains technical information about medicines, including advertisements relating to medicinal products. This information and communication professionals are solely under §2 of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. Is active persons authorized to prescribe or supply (hereinafter expert).
Take note that if you are not an expert, you run the risk of danger to their health or the health of other persons, if you the obtained information improperly understood or interpreted, and especially advertising which may be part of this site, or whether you used it for self-diagnosis or medical treatment, whether in relation to each other in person or in relation to others.

I declare:

  1. that I have met the above instruction
  2. I'm an expert within the meaning of the Act n.40/1995 Coll. the regulation of advertising, as amended, and I am aware of the risks that would be a person other than the expert input to these sites exhibited


No

Yes

If your statement is not true, please be aware
that brings the risk of danger to their health or the health of others.