Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles

Abstract Aims Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is the standard approach for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in advanced ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Microaxial pump support has been envisioned to allow for beating‐heart CABG without CPB (MPCAB), thereby avoiding CPB‐inherent complications. This stud...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Anna Kathrin Assmann, Merve Arik‐Doganay, Sebastian Waßenberg, Payam Akhyari, Artur Lichtenberg, Alexander Assmann
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-08-01
Series:ESC Heart Failure
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.15261
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849708793750880256
author Anna Kathrin Assmann
Merve Arik‐Doganay
Sebastian Waßenberg
Payam Akhyari
Artur Lichtenberg
Alexander Assmann
author_facet Anna Kathrin Assmann
Merve Arik‐Doganay
Sebastian Waßenberg
Payam Akhyari
Artur Lichtenberg
Alexander Assmann
author_sort Anna Kathrin Assmann
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Aims Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is the standard approach for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in advanced ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Microaxial pump support has been envisioned to allow for beating‐heart CABG without CPB (MPCAB), thereby avoiding CPB‐inherent complications. This study aims to compare the in‐hospital and follow‐up outcome of MPCAB versus CPB‐CABG in patients with severely impaired left ventricular function. Methods and results Eleven patients suffering from three‐vessel coronary artery disease with median ejection fraction of 27% and deemed appropriate for CABG according to a heart team decision underwent MPCAB (support up to 5.5 L/min). Propensity score matching generated a CPB‐CABG control group (n = 33). The primary endpoint was defined as death from any cause by the end of the follow‐up (up to 4 years). MPCAB enabled continuous intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamic stabilization and complete myocardial revascularization. After CPB‐CABG, additional mechanical circulatory support was required in 45.5% (vs. 9.1% in MPCAB; P = 0.0363). The follow‐up all‐cause mortality after MPCAB amounted to 0% (vs. 33.3% after CPB‐CABG; P = 0.0414; NNT = 3). MPCAB patients showed a significantly decreased occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: 0% vs. 39.4%; P = 0.0189). Conclusions MPCAB allows for complete surgical revascularization without the necessity of extracorporeal circulation in spite of severely impaired left ventricular function. This first comparative study on the outcome after MPCAB versus CPB‐CABG demonstrates a significantly decreased risk of death as well as MACE in MPCAB patients. The MPCAB concept expands the spectrum of patients eligible for CABG without CPB towards patients with severely impaired left ventricular function.
format Article
id doaj-art-da953dd211944e40b8311ba5693cb4eb
institution DOAJ
issn 2055-5822
language English
publishDate 2025-08-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series ESC Heart Failure
spelling doaj-art-da953dd211944e40b8311ba5693cb4eb2025-08-20T03:15:33ZengWileyESC Heart Failure2055-58222025-08-011242749275810.1002/ehf2.15261Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventriclesAnna Kathrin Assmann0Merve Arik‐Doganay1Sebastian Waßenberg2Payam Akhyari3Artur Lichtenberg4Alexander Assmann5Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical Faculty Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf GermanyDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Medical Faculty Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf Germanypunkt05 Statistics Consultants, Life Science Centre Duesseldorf GermanyDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Medical Faculty Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf GermanyDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Medical Faculty Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf GermanyDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Medical Faculty Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf GermanyAbstract Aims Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is the standard approach for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in advanced ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Microaxial pump support has been envisioned to allow for beating‐heart CABG without CPB (MPCAB), thereby avoiding CPB‐inherent complications. This study aims to compare the in‐hospital and follow‐up outcome of MPCAB versus CPB‐CABG in patients with severely impaired left ventricular function. Methods and results Eleven patients suffering from three‐vessel coronary artery disease with median ejection fraction of 27% and deemed appropriate for CABG according to a heart team decision underwent MPCAB (support up to 5.5 L/min). Propensity score matching generated a CPB‐CABG control group (n = 33). The primary endpoint was defined as death from any cause by the end of the follow‐up (up to 4 years). MPCAB enabled continuous intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamic stabilization and complete myocardial revascularization. After CPB‐CABG, additional mechanical circulatory support was required in 45.5% (vs. 9.1% in MPCAB; P = 0.0363). The follow‐up all‐cause mortality after MPCAB amounted to 0% (vs. 33.3% after CPB‐CABG; P = 0.0414; NNT = 3). MPCAB patients showed a significantly decreased occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: 0% vs. 39.4%; P = 0.0189). Conclusions MPCAB allows for complete surgical revascularization without the necessity of extracorporeal circulation in spite of severely impaired left ventricular function. This first comparative study on the outcome after MPCAB versus CPB‐CABG demonstrates a significantly decreased risk of death as well as MACE in MPCAB patients. The MPCAB concept expands the spectrum of patients eligible for CABG without CPB towards patients with severely impaired left ventricular function.https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.15261Off‐pump coronary artery bypass graftingMicroaxial pump (Impella 5)Mechanical circulatory supportIschaemic cardiomyopathySeverely impaired left ventricular function
spellingShingle Anna Kathrin Assmann
Merve Arik‐Doganay
Sebastian Waßenberg
Payam Akhyari
Artur Lichtenberg
Alexander Assmann
Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles
ESC Heart Failure
Off‐pump coronary artery bypass grafting
Microaxial pump (Impella 5)
Mechanical circulatory support
Ischaemic cardiomyopathy
Severely impaired left ventricular function
title Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles
title_full Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles
title_fullStr Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles
title_full_unstemmed Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles
title_short Microaxial pump‐supported coronary surgery without CPB to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles
title_sort microaxial pump supported coronary surgery without cpb to optimize outcome in severely impaired left ventricles
topic Off‐pump coronary artery bypass grafting
Microaxial pump (Impella 5)
Mechanical circulatory support
Ischaemic cardiomyopathy
Severely impaired left ventricular function
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.15261
work_keys_str_mv AT annakathrinassmann microaxialpumpsupportedcoronarysurgerywithoutcpbtooptimizeoutcomeinseverelyimpairedleftventricles
AT mervearikdoganay microaxialpumpsupportedcoronarysurgerywithoutcpbtooptimizeoutcomeinseverelyimpairedleftventricles
AT sebastianwaßenberg microaxialpumpsupportedcoronarysurgerywithoutcpbtooptimizeoutcomeinseverelyimpairedleftventricles
AT payamakhyari microaxialpumpsupportedcoronarysurgerywithoutcpbtooptimizeoutcomeinseverelyimpairedleftventricles
AT arturlichtenberg microaxialpumpsupportedcoronarysurgerywithoutcpbtooptimizeoutcomeinseverelyimpairedleftventricles
AT alexanderassmann microaxialpumpsupportedcoronarysurgerywithoutcpbtooptimizeoutcomeinseverelyimpairedleftventricles