Lyle, Melissa

Prehabilitation with Impella 5.5 offers hemodynamic support while allowing early mobilization, yet its overall effect on post-transplant recovery remains unclear. The aim was to assess recovery during Impella 5.5–supported prehabilitation and determine its association with early post-heart transplant outcomes, including a potential dose–response relationship with ambulatory activity. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of adults bridged to transplant with Impella 5.5 between April 1, 2022 and September 30, 2024. Daily walking distance, recorded by nursing staff, served as the intervention. Primary outcome was postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS); the secondary outcome was time to extubation. Fine–Gray competing-risk models, adjusted for age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and days of Impella support, assessed associations. Longitudinal recovery trajectories were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models incorporating restricted cubic splines. Among 82 eligible patients, 65 met the inclusion criteria. Patients who walked farther during Impella 5.5 support in the intensive care unit (ICU) had shorter hospital stays and were taken off the ventilator sooner after transplantation. The overall recovery peaked during the first 2–3 weeks of support, with smaller recovery thereafter, indicating that most functional recovery occurred early during prehabilitation.

Abstract Background: Amyloidosis is a complex disease with a multitude of sequalae, particularly with the variants that cause cardiac amyloidosis. There is minimal literature on the types of procedures these patients undergo and the associated postprocedural outcomes. This gap of knowledge makes it difficult for anesthesia providers to risk stratify amyloidosis patients. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective chart review study performed at a tertiary care medical center that serves as a referral center for patients with amyloidosis. Patients with a known diagnosis of transthyretin (ATTR) or light chain (AL) amyloidosis who underwent procedures requiring anesthesia between January 1, 2018 and October 24, 2024 were included in the study. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included other postoperative complications and analysis of types of procedures requiring anesthesia. Results: During the study period, 160 patients underwent a total of 466 procedures requiring anesthesia. Overall, 30-day mortality rate for all encounters was 1.7% (2.7% AL vs 0.5% ATTR, OR 5.71). Endoscopy was the most common procedure, accounting for 26.6% of all procedures. At the patient level, several procedures were more common in ATTR patients including TEE/Cardioversions (21.7% vs 6.6%, p=0.008), electrophysiology (36.2% vs 9.9%, p<0.001), and neurosurgery (13.0% vs 3.3%, p=0.031). Conclusions: In conclusion, patients with amyloid variants that cause cardiac amyloidosis carry substantial postoperative risk when undergoing procedures, with a trend toward increased mortality in patients with AL compared to ATTR. Patients with ATTR are more likely to require neurosurgery and treatment of arrythmias than patients with AL. Additional studies are needed to determine specific diagnostic parameters to help optimize these patients in the future. Trial Registration : Not applicable. Not a clinical trial

Background: Impella 5.5 is a temporary MCS device FDA-approved for use up to 14 days. Limited data suggest it may be safe beyond this. We aim assess outcomes based on the duration of Impella 5.5 support in heart failure cardiogenic shock (HFCS) patients at our institution. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all HFCS patients supported with Impella 5.5 at our institution between 2020-2024. Patients supported for >14 days were compared with those supported for ≤14 days. Categorical variables were analyzed with chi-square tests, continuous variables with t-tests or Mann-Whitney U. Logistic regression identified factors linked to clinical outcomes. Results: 154 patients were included: 38 (25%) with support ≤14 days, 116 (75%) with >14 days. Median support duration was 10 (6–12) vs 31 (22–45) days, respectively. Median support duration was 10 (6-12) days for the ≤14 cohort and 31 days (22-45) days for the >14 cohort. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, LVEF 18% (15-23) and hemodynamics show no statistical differences. Patients supported for >14 days were more likely to undergo heart transplant compared to those supported ≤14 days (91% vs 74%, p=0.009). In contrast, myocardial recovery was more likely in the ≤14 day cohort (8% vs 1%, p=0.018). One patient suffered stroke post-transplant in the ≤14 day group and two had brachial plexus injuries in the >14 days group. Mortality during the impella-supported period was slightly higher in the ≤14 day group (8% vs 5%, p=0.535) but comparable overall, 13% in both groups, p=0.971. Support >14 days was associated with transplant outcome (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.32–8.84, p=0.012), and remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, GFR, and EF (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.31–12.54, p=0.015). Support duration <14 days was associated with recovery or LVAD outcomes (OR 5.01, 95% CI 1.49–16.89, p=0.009), and remained significant after adjustment (OR 5.43, 95% CI 1.11–26.45, p=0.036). No association was observed between duration of support and LVAD/mortality outcomes or with EcPella use. Conclusion: Shorter Impella support duration was independently associated with early myocardial recovery or LVAD candidacy, likely reflecting rapid clinical decision-making. Prolonged Impella support was associated with increased likelihood of transitioning to heart transplantation, likely reflecting clinical stabilization over time. Our multidisciplinary, single-center data suggests Impella 5.5 can be used beyond FDA-approved 14 days in HFCS patients.

Background: Progressive heart failure cardiogenic shock (HFCS) often requires escalation to temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Following the 2018 UNOS allocation changes, our center revised its BTT strategy to optimize support and shorten wait times. At our institution, the Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist via the axillary approach was selectively used for patients who remained refractory to guideline-directed medical therapy, failed single-inotrope therapy, and were not considered suitable durable LVAD candidates by our multidisciplinary heart team. We compared transplant-related outcomes of BTT patients supported with Impella 5.5 versus durable LVAD. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all heart and heart/kidney transplant candidates at Mayo Clinic Florida from October 2018 to February 2021. INTERMACS profile, baseline characteristics, and perioperative data were collected at the time of device implantation and throughout the transplant hospitalization. Results: A total of 87 heart and 4 heart–kidney transplants were completed. Forty-five patients (49%) required MCS as BTT: 27 (60%) with a durable LVAD and 18 (40%) with an Impella 5.5. All eighteen patients with Impella 5.5 as BTT (100%) were transplanted compared to nineteen patients with durable LVAD (70%), p = 0.001. The median time from listing to transplant was substantially shorter with Impella (32 vs. 696 days, p < 0.001), and this difference persisted across INTERMACS profiles. UNOS status at transplant was more urgent for Impella than LVAD (p < 0.001). Transplant surgery following Impella support required shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (181 vs. 219 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in lower postoperative vasoactive-inotropic requirements (7.9 vs. 13, p = 0.003). No patients in the Impella group died or were delisted while awaiting transplant, whereas 5 LVAD patients (26%) died or were removed due to LVAD complications (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates that the use of the Impella 5.5 as BTT was associated with significantly shorter waitlist time, higher transplantation rates, reduced perioperative morbidity, and lower postoperative vasoactive support compared with durable LVAD as BTT. These benefits were achieved despite a higher severity of illness at transplantation in the Impella cohort.

Heart transplantation is a well-established treatment for end-stage heart failure, but many patients present in poor physical condition, complicating outcomes. The Impella 5.5 device, used in cardiogenic shock, may support pretransplant rehabilitation by stabilizing organ function and promoting functional improvement. This retrospective cohort study assessed the relationship between functional status, measured by standardized Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care Basic Mobility (AM-PAC) scores, and days alive outside the hospital within 30 days post-transplant (DAOH-30). Patients who received Impella 5.5 support before transplantation between January 2019 and October 2023 were included, excluding those without AM-PAC scores within 24 hours pretransplant. Among 65 patients, the median DAOH-30 was 15 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8–19). Higher pretransplant standardized AM-PAC scores correlate with increased DAOH-30 (adjusted coefficient 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04), as did AM-PAC score improvement during rehabilitation (adjusted coefficient 0.35; 95% CI = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04). Extended rehabilitation was associated with greater functional gains. These findings suggest that better pretransplant functional status and rehabilitation-related improvements were associated with increased DAOH-30. The Impella 5.5 device facilitates rehabilitation and may enhance post-transplant outcomes. Further research should refine strategies to optimize rehabilitation and recovery in this high-risk population.