Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices

Background Standardized protocols with optimal hemodynamic targets for percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) management remain undefined. We aimed to evaluate the proportion of phase‐specific hemodynamic criteria achieved during PVAD support and their association with outcomes in patients wi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yuki Ikeda, Keita Saku, Jun Nakata, Takashi Unoki, Takeshi Yamamoto, Tomohiro Sakamoto, Junya Ako
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-07-01
Series:Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.125.042249
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850068578427994112
author Yuki Ikeda
Keita Saku
Jun Nakata
Takashi Unoki
Takeshi Yamamoto
Tomohiro Sakamoto
Junya Ako
author_facet Yuki Ikeda
Keita Saku
Jun Nakata
Takashi Unoki
Takeshi Yamamoto
Tomohiro Sakamoto
Junya Ako
author_sort Yuki Ikeda
collection DOAJ
description Background Standardized protocols with optimal hemodynamic targets for percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) management remain undefined. We aimed to evaluate the proportion of phase‐specific hemodynamic criteria achieved during PVAD support and their association with outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods This multicenter retrospective study enrolled patients with cardiogenic shock requiring PVAD (Impella). Patients were evaluated at 24 hours post‐PVAD, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning, and PVAD weaning. Hemodynamic criteria consisted of key targets, including mean arterial pressure ≥60 mm Hg, lactate <2.0 mmol/L, right atrial pressure <15 mm Hg, pulmonary artery wedge pressure <20 mm Hg, pulmonary artery pulsatility index ≥1.0, and cardiac power output ≥0.6 W. The primary outcome was a composite of 30‐day all‐cause mortality and unplanned mechanical circulatory support reintroduction. Results A total of 501 patients were enrolled: 206 (41%) with PVAD alone and 295 (59%) with PVAD and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The majority of patients were supported with Impella CP (406, 81%). Fulfillment of criteria was observed in 37%, 52%, and 45% at 24 hours post‐PVAD, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning, and PVAD weaning, respectively. Patients with unfulfilled criteria at each evaluation point were at high risk for the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 3.2 [95% CI, 2.1–4.8]; hazard ratio, 2.1 [1.2–3.7]; and hazard ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1–3.6]). Hemodynamic criteria achievement consistently stratified the risk of the primary outcome across different subgroups, including shock cause, shock stage, and concomitant use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Conclusions Phase‐specific hemodynamic criteria are often unmet and are associated with significantly higher risks of short‐term fatal events.
format Article
id doaj-art-e96ef606a02042f1a6ddff1d972bf659
institution DOAJ
issn 2047-9980
language English
publishDate 2025-07-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
spelling doaj-art-e96ef606a02042f1a6ddff1d972bf6592025-08-20T02:48:01ZengWileyJournal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease2047-99802025-07-01141310.1161/JAHA.125.042249Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist DevicesYuki Ikeda0Keita Saku1Jun Nakata2Takashi Unoki3Takeshi Yamamoto4Tomohiro Sakamoto5Junya Ako6Department of Cardiovascular Medicine Kitasato University School of Medicine Sagamihara Kanagawa JapanDepartment of Cardiovascular Dynamics National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center Suita, Osaka JapanDivision of Cardiovascular Intensive Care Nippon Medical School Hospital Bunkyo‐Ku, Tokyo JapanDivision of Cardiology Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital Cardiovascular Center Kumamoto JapanDivision of Cardiovascular Intensive Care Nippon Medical School Hospital Bunkyo‐Ku, Tokyo JapanDivision of Cardiology Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital Cardiovascular Center Kumamoto JapanDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Kitasato University School of Medicine Sagamihara Kanagawa JapanBackground Standardized protocols with optimal hemodynamic targets for percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) management remain undefined. We aimed to evaluate the proportion of phase‐specific hemodynamic criteria achieved during PVAD support and their association with outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. Methods This multicenter retrospective study enrolled patients with cardiogenic shock requiring PVAD (Impella). Patients were evaluated at 24 hours post‐PVAD, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning, and PVAD weaning. Hemodynamic criteria consisted of key targets, including mean arterial pressure ≥60 mm Hg, lactate <2.0 mmol/L, right atrial pressure <15 mm Hg, pulmonary artery wedge pressure <20 mm Hg, pulmonary artery pulsatility index ≥1.0, and cardiac power output ≥0.6 W. The primary outcome was a composite of 30‐day all‐cause mortality and unplanned mechanical circulatory support reintroduction. Results A total of 501 patients were enrolled: 206 (41%) with PVAD alone and 295 (59%) with PVAD and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The majority of patients were supported with Impella CP (406, 81%). Fulfillment of criteria was observed in 37%, 52%, and 45% at 24 hours post‐PVAD, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning, and PVAD weaning, respectively. Patients with unfulfilled criteria at each evaluation point were at high risk for the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 3.2 [95% CI, 2.1–4.8]; hazard ratio, 2.1 [1.2–3.7]; and hazard ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1–3.6]). Hemodynamic criteria achievement consistently stratified the risk of the primary outcome across different subgroups, including shock cause, shock stage, and concomitant use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Conclusions Phase‐specific hemodynamic criteria are often unmet and are associated with significantly higher risks of short‐term fatal events.https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.125.042249heart failurehemodynamicsmicroaxial flow pumpprognosisshock
spellingShingle Yuki Ikeda
Keita Saku
Jun Nakata
Takashi Unoki
Takeshi Yamamoto
Tomohiro Sakamoto
Junya Ako
Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices
Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
heart failure
hemodynamics
microaxial flow pump
prognosis
shock
title Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices
title_full Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices
title_fullStr Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices
title_full_unstemmed Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices
title_short Phase‐Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices
title_sort phase specific hemodynamic criteria and outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving percutaneous ventricular assist devices
topic heart failure
hemodynamics
microaxial flow pump
prognosis
shock
url https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.125.042249
work_keys_str_mv AT yukiikeda phasespecifichemodynamiccriteriaandoutcomesinpatientswithcardiogenicshockreceivingpercutaneousventricularassistdevices
AT keitasaku phasespecifichemodynamiccriteriaandoutcomesinpatientswithcardiogenicshockreceivingpercutaneousventricularassistdevices
AT junnakata phasespecifichemodynamiccriteriaandoutcomesinpatientswithcardiogenicshockreceivingpercutaneousventricularassistdevices
AT takashiunoki phasespecifichemodynamiccriteriaandoutcomesinpatientswithcardiogenicshockreceivingpercutaneousventricularassistdevices
AT takeshiyamamoto phasespecifichemodynamiccriteriaandoutcomesinpatientswithcardiogenicshockreceivingpercutaneousventricularassistdevices
AT tomohirosakamoto phasespecifichemodynamiccriteriaandoutcomesinpatientswithcardiogenicshockreceivingpercutaneousventricularassistdevices
AT junyaako phasespecifichemodynamiccriteriaandoutcomesinpatientswithcardiogenicshockreceivingpercutaneousventricularassistdevices