Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Invited Commentary

Mechanical Bridge to Long-Term Device Implant

The Necessary Step for Better Outcomes

Maltais, Simon*; Stulak, John M.†‡; Zalawadiya, Sandip K.†‡

Author Information
doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000235
  • Free

Cardiogenic shock (CS) has profound impact on short- and long-term mortality and morbidities.1–3 However, recent advancements in revascularization strategies and availability of newer generation short- and long-term mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSD) have significantly improved outcomes in patients with CS.2,3 The significance lies in particular with the short-term MCSD as they not only provide successful hemodynamic support but also serve as a “bridge to decision” (BTD) for heart transplantation and durable MCSD or “bridge to bridge” (BTB) for durable MCSD. Among myriads of temporary short-term devices available in the market today, particular emphasis should be placed upon certain technical, clinical, and economic characteristics of these VADs when choosing one (Table 1).

Table 1
Table 1:
Characteristics of an Ideal Short-Term Mechanical Support Device

Impella 5.0 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) is one of the short-term MCSD, which is approved in the United States since 2009 for circulatory support up to 6 hours and have CE mark approval in Europe for up to 10 days duration. It is a microaxial, catheter-based MCSD which is inserted in a retrograde fashion via peripheral surgical vascular access. Technical ease of utilization and profile of hemodynamic support makes it an attractive short-term MCSD option.4 With its ability to be inserted in axillary artery, it raises the field of short-term MCSD to a higher level. Besides providing adequate hemodynamic support and thereby supporting the end-organ function and allowing adequate time to assess the candidacy for heart transplant or durable MCSD implantation, it also allows for early ambulation and rehabilitation; thereby, helping to optimize clinical condition of CS patients before a major cardiac surgery.

At present, the clinical experience with Impella 5.0 implantation via axillary approach is limited and, therefore, study by Doersch et al.5 certainly adds to the growing body of literature.6–10 In their report of 15 patients supported via axillary Impella 5.0 (~94% of the patients being in Interagency Registry of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support class I), they were successful in reducing their 30 day and discharge mortality to 27% and 33%, respectively. In addition, Impella 5.0 use was successful as BTB for durable MCSD implantation in 20% of the patients (three out of 15 HeartMate II implantation) and bridging to recovery for the remaining patients (40%, six out of 15) at the time of discharge. These findings are comparable, if not better than that of published reports on other temporary MCSDs.11–14

Adverse short- and long-term association of prolonged bed-rest among hospitalized patients, especially those in intensive care units (ICU), have been well demonstrated.15 Physical therapy and early progressive ambulation among ICU patients is not only feasible,16,17 but also considered a standard of care now, especially after cardiac surgery.18 From the commercially available temporary MCSDs, intraaortic balloon pump (IABP; axillary approach), Centrimag and Impella (axillary approach) are the only devices having potential to allow for early ambulation. Prior reports with both axillary IABP19 and Centrimag11,20 support have shown that they can be successfully used as bridge to recovery, transplantation or durable MCSD implantation and can allow early ambulation. However, suboptimal hemodynamic support offered by IABP4,21 and the need for sternotomy approach with Centrimag implantation20 can potentially be the limitation of these two devices. On the contrary, axillary Impella 5.0 provides better hemodynamic support and does not need a sternotomy for implantation; thereby, making it an attractive option for temporary MCSD support. Doersch et al.5 were able to demonstrate high success rate with axillary Impella 5.0 for early ambulation in majority of the patients along improved hemodynamics and stabilization of the end-organ function. In addition, they observed minimal device-related complications; notably none had access site bleeding, hematoma or infection and thromboembolism, and only one patient had mild aortic regurgitation and another had device failure.

Hemolysis related to the device use requiring blood transfusions are common with Impella use.22 Although no information was available for blood transfusions requirement in the study by Doersch et al.,5 a nonsignificant drop in hemoglobin and hematocrit levels was observed. Hemolysis requiring blood transfusions can be an important limitation of Impella use, especially for those to be considered for heart transplantation as number of blood transfusions can potentially increase the risk of sensitization and graft dysfunction/loss.23 Although the successful experience of Impella 5.05 is encouraging, an important limitation of sample size needs to be taken into account while reviewing their findings.

In aggregate, study done by Doersch et al.5 is an encouraging step toward emphasizing the importance of early ambulation in the management of CS patients. It further opens up the field for questions; especially, the direct comparison between temporary MCSDs capable of providing adequate hemodynamic support along with allowing for early ambulation in patients with CS before their cardiac surgery as BTD or BTB.


1. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, Every N, Sichrovsky T, Hochman JSNRMI Investigators. . Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2005;294:448–454
2. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, et al.AMIS Plus Registry Investigators. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:618–626
3. Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, Thompson CA, Gurwitz JH.. Recent magnitude of and temporal trends (1994–1997) in the incidence and hospital death rates of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: The second national registry of myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 2001;141(1):65–72
4. Naidu SS.. Novel percutaneous cardiac assist devices: The science of and indications for hemodynamic support. Circulation. 2011;123:533–543
5. Doersch KM, Tong CW, Gongora E, et al. Temporary left ventricular assist device through axillary access is a promising approach to improve outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock patients. ASAIO J. 2015;61:253–258
6. Pozzi M, Quessard A, Nguyen A, et al. Using the Impella 5.0 with a right axillary artery approach as bridge to long-term mechanical circulatory assistance. Int J Artif Organs. 2013;36:605–611
7. Lam K, Sjauw KD, van der Meulen J, et al. A combined surgical and percutaneous approach through the axillary artery to introduce the Impella LP5.0 for short-term circulatory support. Int J Cardiol. 2009;134:277–279
8. Sassard T, Scalabre A, Bonnefoy E, Sanchez I, Farhat F, Jegaden O. The right axillary artery approach for the Impella Recover LP 5.0 microaxial pump. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1468–1470
9. Rajagopalan N, Yanagida R, Hoopes CW. Insertion of Impella 5.0 to improve candidacy for HeartMate II left ventricular assist device placement. J Invasive Cardiol. 2014;26:E40–E41
10. Castillo-Sang MA, Prasad SM, Singh J, Ewald GA, Silvestry SC. Thirty-five day Impella 5.0 support via right axillary side graft cannulation for acute cardiogenic shock. Innovations (Phila). 2013;8:307–309
11. Borisenko O, Wylie G, Payne J, et al. 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;60:487–497
12. Zangrillo A, Landoni G, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. A meta-analysis of complications and mortality of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Resusc. 2013;15:172–178
13. Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, et al. The outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the type of revascularization: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2013;165:679–692
14. Kar B, Adkins LE, Civitello AB, et al. Clinical experience with the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device. Tex Heart Inst J. 2006;33:111–115
15. Warburton DE, Nicol CW, Bredin SS. Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ. 2006;174:801–809
16. Kayambu G, Boots R, Paratz J. Physical therapy for the critically ill in the ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1543–1554
17. Brummel NE, Girard TD, Ely EW, et al. Feasibility and safety of early combined cognitive and physical therapy for critically ill medical and surgical patients: The Activity and Cognitive Therapy in ICU (ACT-ICU) trial. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:370–379
18. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):e123–210
19. Umakanthan R, Hoff SJ, Solenkova N, et al. Benefits of ambulatory axillary intra-aortic balloon pump for circulatory support as bridge to heart transplant. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:1193–1197
20. Takayama H, Chen JM, Jorde UP, Naka Y. Implantation technique of the CentriMag biventricular assist device allowing ambulatory rehabilitation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;12:110–111
21. Weber KT, Janicki JS. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation. A review of physiological principles, clinical results, and device safety. Ann Thorac Surg. 1974;17:602–636
22. Lauten A, Engström 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
23. Scornik JC, Bromberg JS, Norman DJ, Bhanderi M, Gitlin M, Petersen J. An update on the impact of pre-transplant transfusions and allosensitization on time to renal transplant and on allograft survival. BMC Nephrol. 2013;14:217
Copyright © 2015 by the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs