Why the study?
Use of percutaneous right ventricular assist devices for refractory RV-predominant CS is increasing, but clinical outcomes of the FDA-approved Impella RP needed reporting from the IMP-IT registry.
In patients with RV-predominant cardiogenic shock, percutaneous right ventricular assist devices provide feasible survival outcomes but are associated with a high burden of device-related complications.
High mortality and complications with Impella RP suggest cautious use in RV shock; leaves open efficacy for prospective trials.
The use of percutaneous right ventricular assist devices (pRVADs) to support patients with right ventricular (RV)-predominant cardiogenic shock (CS) refractory to optimal medical therapy is increasing progressively, and the Impella RP is the first FDA-approved pRVAD in such a clinical scenario. The aim of the present study is to report the outcomes of patients treated with Impella RP in the IMP-IT (IMPella Mechanical Circulatory Support Device in Italy) registry, a multicenter registry that evaluated the trends in use and clinical outcomes of the Impella in the setting of CS and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in Italy. A total of 15 patients who received Impella RP were enrolled. In 40% of the patients, the main cause was ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A total of 40% of patients required biventricular support with a left Impella. Device-related complications were reported in 46.7% of patients. Overall, the in-hospital mortality was 46.7%, whereas the one-year mortality was 53.3%. The composite rate of all-cause death, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and heart transplant at one year was 60%. The Impella RP has favorable survival outcomes in RV-predominant cardiogenic shock. However, the device-related complications are frequent and should be carefully weighed when considering escalation to Impella RP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Botti et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: