Evolution of Concomitant Use of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support With Impella in Cardiogenic Shock: From Percutaneous Femoral Impella to Axillary Impella 5.5

Authors

Ameesh Isath, Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Suguru Ohira, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Avi Levine, Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Gregg M. Lanier, Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Stephen Pan, Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Chhaya Aggarwal-Gupta, Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.Follow
Ian Mason, School of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Vasiliki Gregory, School of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
David Spielvogel, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Alan L. Gass, Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Masashi Kai, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York, USA.

Author Type(s)

Student, Resident/Fellow, Faculty

Journal Title

Artificial Organs

First Page

1404

Last Page

1412

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

8-1-2023

Department

Surgery

Second Department

Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about safety and efficacy of the use of Impella 5.5 compared to previous iterations in the setting of Impella with Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support as ECPELLA. METHODS: Consecutive patients who were treated by ECPELLA with surgically implanted axillary Impella 5.5 (N = 13) were compared with patients supported by ECPELLA with percutaneous femoral Impella CP or 2.5 (Control, N = 13). RESULTS: The total ECPELLA flow was higher in ECPELLA 5.5 group (6.9 vs. 5.4 L/min, p = 0.019). Actual hospital survival was higher than predicted and comparable in both groups (ECPELLA 5.5, 61.5% vs. Control, 53.8%, p = 0.691). Both total device complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 7.7% vs. Control, 46.1%, p = 0.021) and Impella-specific complications (ECPELLA 5.5, 0% vs. Control, 30.8%, p = 0.012) were significantly lower in the ECPELLA 5.5 group. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of Impella 5.5 in the setting of ECPELLA provides greater hemodynamic support with a lower risk of complications compared to Impella CP or 2.5.

Recommended Citation

Isath, A., Ohira, S., Levine, A., Lanier, G. M., Pan, S., Aggarwal-Gupta, C., Mason, I., Gregory, V., Spielvogel, D., Gass, A. L., & Kai, M. (2023). Evolution of Concomitant Use of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support With Impella in Cardiogenic Shock: From Percutaneous Femoral Impella to Axillary Impella 5.5. Artificial Organs, 47 (8), 1404-1412. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14594