Why the study?
Does Impella improve successful weaning from temporary mechanical circulatory support compared to BIVAD in patients with refractory fulminant myocarditis?
Does Impella improve successful weaning from temporary mechanical circulatory support compared to BIVAD in patients with refractory fulminant myocarditis?
In patients with fulminant myocarditis refractory to VA-ECMO, left ventricular unloading with Impella promotes higher rates of successful and faster weaning from temporary mechanical circulatory support compared to BIVAD.
Impella may promote faster recovery than BIVAD in refractory FM; leaves open need for randomized trials before practice change.
Fulminant myocarditis (FM) requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support (t-MCS) has a high mortality rate. Peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are sometimes insufficient to induce cardiac recovery. For patients with FM refractory to VA-ECMO with IABP, we have applied a biventricular assist device (BIVAD) or Impella to unload the left ventricle and to fully support the systemic circulation. In the last 10 years, 37 refractory FM patients histologically diagnosed with myocarditis and who did not recover with VA-ECMO were treated with BIVAD (n = 19) or Impella (n = 18). No significant difference was found between the Impella and BIVAD groups in preoperative findings other than serum creatinine level. Seventeen of 18 patients in the Impella group were successfully weaned from t-MCS in 9 (6-12) days. Conversely, the temporary BIVAD was removed in 21 (11-38) days in 10 of 19 patients. Six patients died while on temporary BIVAD because of multiple organ failure and cerebral bleeding, and three patients required conversion to implantable VAD. Compared with BIVAD, left ventricular unloading with Impella could be less invasive and could promote cardiac recovery in refractory FM patients. The Impella has the potential to provide effective temporary MCS for FM patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawamura et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: