Home > Journals > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2013 October;61(5) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2013 October;61(5):539-46



To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian





Minerva Cardioangiologica 2013 October;61(5):539-46


language: English

Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a three-center experience

Engström A. E. 1, Granfeldt H. 4, Seybold-Epting W. 5, Dahm M. 5, Cocchieri R. 2, Driessen A. H. G. 2, Sjauw K. D. 1, Vis M. M. 1, Baan J. 1, Koch K. T. 1, De Jong M. 3, Lagrand W. K. 3, Van Der Sloot J. A. P. 3, Tijssen J. G. P. 1, De Winter R. J. 1, De Mol B. A. J. M. 2, Piek J. J. 1, Henriques J. P. S. 1

1 AMC Heart Center, Department of Cardiology Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2 AMC Heart Center Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 3 Department of Intensive Care Medicine Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 4 University Hospital of Linköping Department of Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, Linköping Heart Center, Linköping, Sweden; 5 Clinic for Thoracic Heart and Vascular Surgery, Westpfalz‑Klinikum, Kaiserslautern, Germany


Aim: Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is associated with high mortality rates, despite full conventional treatment. Although the results of treatment with surgically implantable ventricular assist devices have been encouraging, the invasiveness of this treatment limits its applicability. Several less invasive devices have been developed, including the Impella system. The objective of this study was to describe our three-center experience with the Impella 5.0 device in the setting of PCCS.
Methods: From January 2004 through December 2010, a total of 46 patients were diagnosed with treatment-refractory PCCS and treated with the Impella 5.0 percutaneous left ventricular assist device at three european heart centers. Baseline and follow-up characteristics were collected retrospectively and entered into a dedicated database.
Results: Within the study cohort of 46 patients, mean logistic and additive EuroSCORES were 24±19 and 10±4. The majority of patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (48%) or combined surgery (33%). Half of all patients had been treated with an intra-aortic balloon pump before 5.0-implantation, 1 patient had been treated with an Impella 2.5 device. All patients were on mechanical ventilation and intravenous inotropes. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall 30-day survival was 39.5%.
Conclusion: Thirty-day survival rates for patients with PCCS, refractory to aggressive conventional treatment and treated with the Impella 5.0 device, are comparable to those reported in studies evaluating surgically implantable VADs, whereas the Impella system is much less invasive. Therefore, mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device is a suitable treatment modality for patients with severe PCCS.

top of page