P1715Management and outcome in patients with non-ischemic cardiogenic shock and Impella CP use

Abstract

Abstract Background and purpose From the various mechanical cardiac assist devices and indications available, use of the percutaneous intraventricular Impella CP pump is usually restricted to acute ischemic shock or prophylactic indications in high-risk interventions. In the present study, we investigated clinical usefulness of the Impella CP device in patients with non-ischemic cardiogenic shock as compared to acute ischemia. Methods In this retrospective single-center analysis, patients who received an Impella CP between 2013 and 2017 due to non-ischemic cardiogenic shock were age-matched 2:1 with patients receiving the device due to ischemic cardiogenic shock. Inclusion criteria were therapy refractory hemodynamic instability with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction and serum lactate >2.0 mmol/l at implantation. Basic clinical data, indications for mechanical ventricular support, and outcome were obtained in all patients with non-ischemic as well as ischemic shock and compared between both groups. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median (quartiles). Categorical variables are presented as count and percent. Results 25 patients had cardiogenic shock due to non-ischemic reasons, and were compared to 50 patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Resuscitation rates before implantation of Impella CP were high (32 vs 42%; P=0.402). At implantation, patients with non-ischemic cardiogenic shock had lower levels of HsTNT (110.65 [57.87–322.1] vs 1610 [450.8–3861.5] pg/ml; P=0.001) and LDH (377 [279–608] vs 616 [371.3–1109] U/I; P=0.007), while age (59±16 vs 61.7±11; P=0.401), GFR (43.5 [33.2–59.7] vs 48 [35.75–69] ml/min; P=0.290), CRP (5.17 [3.27–10.26] vs 10.97 [3.23–17.2] mg/dl; P=0.195), catecholamine-index (30.6 [10.6–116.9] vs 47.6 [11.7–90] μg/kg/min; P=0.663), and serum lactate (2.6 [2.2–5.8] vs 2.9 [1.3–6.6] mg/dl; P=0.424) were comparable between both groups. There was a trend for longer duration of Impella support in the non-ischemic groups (5 [2–7.5] vs 3 [2–5.25] days, P=0.211). Rates of hemodialysis (52 vs 47%; P=0.680) and transition to ECMO (13.6 vs 22.2%; P=0.521) were comparable. No significant difference was found regarding both 30-days survival (48 vs 30%; P=0.126, Figure 1) as well in-hospital mortality (66.7 vs 74%; P=0.512) although there was a trend for better survival in the non-ischemic group. 30-days survival Conclusions The current results position short-time use of the Impella CP as an alternative in the treatment of patients with cardiogenic shock due to underlying non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and/or complicating additional factors. However, additional studies are needed to test whether these findings can be confirmed in larger patient populations and which subgroups might benefit most from Impella therapy.