Key result
Impella 5.0 was successfully used for 7 days to support a patient with post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock through a new bioprosthetic aortic valve, resulting in myocardial recovery without valve damage.
Why the study?
Can an Impella 5.0 device be safely and effectively used for post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock through a newly implanted bioprosthetic aortic valve?
Case Report (n=1)
Can an Impella 5.0 device be safely and effectively used for post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock through a newly implanted bioprosthetic aortic valve?
This case report provides the first published evidence that an Impella 5.0 device can be successfully and safely used for mechanical circulatory support through a newly implanted bioprosthetic aortic valve.
May support Impella 5.0 feasibility across new bioprosthetic valves in select shock cases; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock is an infrequent devastating complication with few options for support. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a case highlighting use of the Impella 5.0 (ABIOMED; Danvers, MA) for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after coronary artery bypass and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. RESULTS: Support was maintained for 7 days before being successfully weaned with myocardial recovery and no damage to the bioprosthetic aortic valve. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first published report of successful use of an Impella 5.0 (ABIOMED; Danvers, MA) for post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock through a new implanted bioprosthetic aortic valve.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomas et al. (2013) conducted a case report in Post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (n=1). Impella 5.0 was evaluated on Successful weaning with myocardial recovery and no damage to the bioprosthetic aortic valve. Impella 5.0 was successfully used for 7 days to support a patient with post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock through a new bioprosthetic aortic valve, resulting in myocardial recovery without valve damage.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: