Skip to main content
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
Download PDF
  • Research Articles
  • Open access
  • Published:

The impact of ECPELLA on haemodynamics and global oxygen delivery: a comprehensive simulation of biventricular failure

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental volume 12, Article number: 13 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

ECPELLA, a combination of veno-arterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and Impella, a percutaneous left ventricular (LV) assist device, has emerged as a novel therapeutic option in patients with severe cardiogenic shock (CS). Since multiple cardiovascular and pump factors influence the haemodynamic effects of ECPELLA, optimising ECPELLA management remains challenging. In this study, we conducted a comprehensive simulation study of ECPELLA haemodynamics. We also simulated global oxygen delivery (DO2) under ECPELLA in severe CS and acute respiratory failure as a first step to incorporate global DO2 into our developed cardiovascular simulation.

Methods and results

Both the systemic and pulmonary circulations were modelled using a 5-element resistance‒capacitance network. The four ventricles were represented by time-varying elastances with unidirectional valves. In the scenarios of severe LV dysfunction, biventricular dysfunction with normal pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR, 0.8 Wood units), and biventricular dysfunction with high PVR (6.0 Wood units), we compared the changes in haemodynamics, pressure–volume relationship (PV loop), and global DO2 under different VA-ECMO flows and Impella support levels.

Results

In the simulation, ECPELLA improved total systemic flow with a minimising biventricular pressure–volume loop, indicating biventricular unloading in normal PVR conditions. Meanwhile, increased Impella support level in high PVR conditions rendered the LV–PV loop smaller and induced LV suction in ECPELLA support conditions. The general trend of global DO2 was followed by the changes in total systemic flow. The addition of veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO) augmented the global DO2 increment under ECPELLA total support conditions.

Conclusions

The optimal ECPELLA support increased total systemic flow and achieved both biventricular unloading. The VV-ECMO effectively improves global DO2 in total ECPELLA support conditions.

Background

Despite notable advancements in cardiovascular intensive care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a high mortality rate [1]. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has revolutionised the management of CS, providing essential global oxygen delivery (DO2) and haemodynamic support to patients with complicated haemodynamics. However, VA-ECMO can also increase left ventricular (LV) afterload, potentially worsening LV dysfunction and pulmonary oedema [2]. Recently, ECPELLA, the combination of VA-ECMO and Impella, a percutaneous LV assist device (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA), has emerged as a novel therapeutic option to address the limitation of VA-ECMO alone strategy [3].

ECPELLA effectively unloads the LV and augments systemic blood flow. However, the haemodynamic effects of ECPELLA are complex and influenced by a multitude of factors, including the underlying cardiovascular and lung condition and the VA-ECMO flow and Impella support level settings. Thus, optimising ECPELLA management remains challenging [4].

Moreover, 80% of patients with CS develop acute respiratory failure (ARF) [5]. In some cases of severe CS with ARF, impaired oxygenation in the lung requires veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO) in addition to other mechanical circulatory support (MCS) [6]. Multi-optional MCS strategies may save the patients with severe CS. However, difficulty in accumulating case experience and case-dependent haemodynamic and respiratory alterations limit a comprehensive understanding of these treatments.

We conducted a simulation study of ECPELLA haemodynamic management to understand ECPELLA haemodynamics comprehensively, leading to optimal ECPELLA management. We have previously reported the haemodynamic mechanisms of several MCSs using an electrical cardiovascular model [7]. Simulations allow us to evaluate and visualise the dynamic changes of right atrial pressure (RAP), left atrial pressure (LAP), total systemic flow, and biventricular pressure–volume loop (PV loop) at varying VA-ECMO flow, Impella support level, and degree of biventricular function, which are difficult to assess in clinical practice. We also simulated global DO2 in severe CS and ARF with ECPELLA support as a first step to incorporate global DO2 management into our developed cardiovascular simulation.

Methods

Electrical model

We examined the impact of MCS combination therapies on haemodynamics and oxygen delivery in silico using a 5-element cardiovascular model (Fig. 1). We simulated the dynamic cardiovascular system using Simulink® (Mathworks, Massachusetts, USA). The systemic and pulmonary circulations were modelled using the 5-element resistance‒capacitance network model. We approximated four intracardiac valves as unidirectional valves, and the flow rate was determined by the pressure gradient between pre- and post-valve compartments and the valve orifice area based on Bernoulli's theorem [8]. In the four cardiac chambers, contractility and relaxation were represented by time-varying elastance [9], and stiffness was expressed by the end-diastolic pressure–volume relation [10]. VA-ECMO was designed to continuously remove blood from systemic veins and return to the systemic arteries at continuous flows. Impella was designed to withdraw blood from the LV and continuously return blood to systemic arteries by the axial pump. We modelled the pump performance of Impella based on the head‒capacity (H‒Q) curve described in a previous report [11] and the company's published product manual (Instructions for Use and Clinical Reference Manual of Impella CP). The flow rate of Impella was determined by the Impella rotational speed (P0‒P9) and the pressure gradient between the systemic artery and LV (Additional files 1 and 2). The approximate H–Q curves (P0–P9) correlate significantly (p < 0.05, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient) with the published H–Q curves (Additional file 3).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Circuit diagram of the cardiovascular simulation model. VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LAP left atrial pressure, LVP left ventricular pressure, SAP systemic arterial pressure, SCP systemic capillary pressure, SVP systemic venous pressure, RAP right atrial pressure, RVP right ventricular pressure, PAP pulmonary artery pressure, PCP pulmonary capillary pressure, PVP pulmonary venous pressure, ELA time-varying elastance of left atrium, DMV mitral valve, RMV resistance of mitral valve, ELV time-varying elastance of left ventricle, DAV aortic valve, RAV resistance of aortic valve, RSZ0 characteristic impedance of systemic circulation, CSA compliance of systemic circulation, RSA resistance of systemic artery, CSC compliance of systemic capillary vessels, RSC resistance of systemic capillary vessels, CSV compliance of systemic vein, RSV resistance of systemic vein, ERA time-varying elastance of right atrium, DTV tricuspid valve, RTV resistance of tricuspid valve, ERV time-varying elastance of right ventricle, DPAV pulmonary artery valve, RPAV resistance of pulmonary artery valve, RPZ0 characteristic impedance of pulmonary circulation, CPA compliance of pulmonary artery, RPA resistance of pulmonary artery, CPC compliance of pulmonary capillary vessels, RPC resistance of pulmonary capillary vessels, CPV compliance of pulmonary vein, RPV resistance of pulmonary vein

Full size image

Setting of parameters and outcomes

To simulate left ventricular failure (LVF) and biventricular failure (BVF) without any mechanical circulatory support, we adjusted several parameters as follows: LV end-systolic elastance (Ees) was set at 0.4 mmHg/ml; right ventricular (RV) Ees was varied for 0.2 and 0.5 mmHg/mL; heart rate was set to 80 beats per minute (bpm) with reference to several clinical studies of CS [12,13,14], and kept constant for simplicity of simulation, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) was set at 11.7 Wood units (WU). Previous studies have reported normal values of 1.6 mmHg/ml for LV‒Ees and 0.44 mmHg/ml for RV‒Ees, although the values may vary depending on species and the measurement method [15, 16]. Each Ees in this study referenced studies of cardiogenic shock models caused by acute myocardial infarction or acute pulmonary artery thrombosis, showing that contractility is reduced by 34‒51% from baseline [17, 18]. To simulate the conditions of healthy physiology and pulmonary hypertension (PH), we modulated the total pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), setting it to 0.8 WU for healthy and 6.0 WU for PH. Pulmonary vascular impedance (Zc) was adjusted according to changes in PVR as reported in previous studies [19], while systemic parameters and other physiological parameters were fixed values based on data from healthy subjects (Additional file 1).

We constructed PV loops from the dynamic data obtained over time by conducting a simulation for each condition (Fig. 2). We calculated the pressure–volume area (PVA) [20] by integrating the area enclosed by the end-systolic pressure–volume relationship (ESPVR), the end-diastolic pressure‒volume relationship (EDPVR), and the PV loop (Additional file 4). Additionally, we determined stroke work (SW) [20] as the area within the PV loop for a single cardiac cycle. We compared the changes in RAP and LAP, total systemic flow, PVA, and SW across three pathological conditions: left LVF, BVF, and BVF concomitant with PH. These conditions were examined under different VA-ECMO flows and Impella support levels.

Fig. 2
figure 2

A Representative plots from one cardiovascular simulation with changing cardiovascular conditions. Our simulation can capture complicated haemodynamic changes and generate biventricular pressure–volume loops for each heartbeat. The plot draws haemodynamic changes from the normal condition to LVF, BVF, and BVF with PH. LVF left ventricular failure, BVF biventricular failure, PH pulmonary hypertension, AP arterial pressure, LVP left ventricle pressure, LAP left atrial pressure, PAP pulmonary artery pressure, RVP right ventricular pressure, RAP right atrial pressure, PV loop pressure–volume loop. B Representative plots from one cardiovascular simulation with changing VA-ECMO flows and Impella support levels. In biventricular failure and high pulmonary vascular resistance, the combination therapy of VA-ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) increased AP and total systemic flow while decreasing LVP and inducing LV suction with high-flow Impella support. VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, AP arterial pressure, LVP left ventricular pressure, LAP left atrial pressure, PAP pulmonary artery pressure, RVP right ventricular pressure, RAP right atrial pressure, PV loop pressure–volume loop

Full size image

Furthermore, we evaluate the effect of multiple MCS on global DO2. Global DO2 is determined by cardiac output (CO), haemoglobin concentration, and arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) [21]. Using ECPELLA support, Impella delivers blood oxygenated by the patient's lungs, and VA-ECMO supplies blood highly oxygenated by artificial lungs. Therefore, global DO2 under ECPELLA support is represented by the following equation:

$${\text{DO}}_{2} = 1.34 \times 10 \times {\text{Hb}} \times {\text{SaO}}_{2} \times ({\text{CO}} + {\text{Impella flow}} ) + 1.34 \times 10 \times {\text{Hb}} \times 1.0 \times {\text{VA-ECMO flow}},$$

where Hb (g/dL) is the haemoglobin concentration, SaO2 (–) is arterial oxygen saturation, and CO (L/min) is cardiac output.

In clinical practice, excessive blood withdrawal by Impella can lead to a significant decrease in LV volume, resulting in "LV suction" [22]. In this study, LV suction was defined as LAP reaching 0 mmHg. We adjusted the simulation to introduce resistance to the Impella flow when LAP fell below 0, reducing flow.

Protocols

Protocol 1: impact of ECPELLA on LVF haemodynamics

We examined the effect of VA-ECMO flow and Impella support level on haemodynamics in LV dysfunction. VA-ECMO varied from 0 to 5 L/min in 0.5 L/min steps, and Impella also varied in each support stepwise from P0 to P9. LV‒Ees was set at 0.4 mmHg/ml. RV systolic function and PVR were fixed at normal levels (RV‒Ees, 0.5 mmHg/mL, PVR, 0.8 WU).

Protocol 2: impact of ECPELLA on BVF haemodynamics

We investigated the impact of VA-ECMO flows and Impella support levels on haemodynamics in biventricular dysfunction. VA-ECMO varied from 0 to 5 L/min in 0.5 L/min steps, and Impella also varied in each support stepwise from P0 to P9. LV‒Ees and RV‒Ees were set at 0.4 and 0.2 mmHg/mL, respectively. PVR was fixed at normal levels (PVR, 0.8 WU).

Protocol 3: impact of ECPELLA on BVF with PH haemodynamics

We investigated the impact of VA-ECMO flows and Impella support levels on haemodynamics in biventricular dysfunction with pulmonary hypertension. VA-ECMO varied from 0 to 5 L/min in 0.5 L/min steps, and Impella also varied in each support stepwise from P0 to P9. LV‒Ees and RV‒Ees were set at 0.4 and 0.2 mmHg/mL, respectively. PVR was set at 6.0 WU.

Protocol 4: impact of ECEPLLA with/without VV-ECMO on global DO2

We performed haemodynamic simulations in the ECPELLA support condition with VV-ECMO. To simulate typical clinical scenarios, haemoglobin concentration was set at 10 g/dL, which refers to the common clinical setting as shown in the recent VV-ECMO study [23], with a target SaO2 of 80% as recommended by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization [24]. To simulate severe ARF with hypoxemia, SaO2 was set at 40% for the native lung and increased to 80% by adding VV-ECMO support. The maximum VA-ECMO flow rate was set at 4 L/min, considering that an increase in venous outflow can lead to a reduction in arterial outflow due to the inherent limitations of venous circulation in VAV-ECMO support [25]. We also validated two different patterns of PVR with pulmonary oedema. LV‒Ees and RV‒Ees were set at 0.4 and 0.2 mmHg/mL, respectively. PVR were set at 0.8 WU (normal PVR) and 6.0 WU (PH).

Data analysis

The fixed step size (fundamental sampling time) in this simulation was set at 0.2 ms, and we performed calculations for 550 s in each simulation. For the first 100 s, haemodynamic simulations were conducted without Impella support. Then, the Impella support level was increased gradually every 50 s, and stable haemodynamic values were extracted 2 s before the next alteration when the time series data reached a steady state (Additional file 5) [26].

Results

Protocol 1: impact of ECPELLA on LVF haemodynamics

As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, an increase in VA-ECMO flow decreased CO and increased total systemic flow and mean AP. The addition of Impella decreased CO and increased total systemic flow and mean AP while maintaining RAP and reducing LAP. Under total ECPELLA support, i.e. zero CO and ECPELLA-dependent circulation, an increase in Impella support level effectively increased total systemic flow and mean AP and markedly decreased LAP. PV loop analyses are shown in Fig. 4 and Additional file 6. In the RV-PV loop, both VA-ECMO and Impella rendered the RV-PV loop left downward and decreased RV-PVA in each ECPELLA support condition. In the LV–PV loop, VA-ECMO shifted the LV–PV loop downward to the left only in higher Impella support conditions (P6). The degree of LV–PV loop shifting and LV-PVA reduction by Impella were augmented under VA-ECMO support conditions.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Impact of ECPELLA on LVF haemodynamics. Changes in CO (A), total systemic flow (B), mean AP (C), RAP (D), and LAP (E) are shown. Each simulation consists of a series of 10 plots (Impella support at P0 ➝ P1 ➝・・・➝P9) corresponding to a single varied setting, from which 11 sets of data (VA-ECMO flow at 0➝0.5➝・・・➝5.0 L/min) were used to construct the plots. An increase in VA-ECMO flow decreased CO and increased total systemic flow and mean AP. The addition of Impella decreased CO and increased total systemic flow and mean AP, while maintaining RAP and reducing LAP. Under total ECPELLA support, i.e. zero CO, an increase in Impella support level effectively increased total systemic flow and mean AP, and markedly decreased LAP. LVF left ventricular failure, VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, CO cardiac output, AP arterial pressure, RAP right atrial pressure, LAP left atrial pressure

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Impact of ECPELLA on right and left ventricular PV loops on LVF haemodynamics. Three conditions of MCS are shown: Impella alone (A), 2.0 mL/min of VA-ECMO with Impella (B), and 4.0 mL/min of VA-ECMO with Impella (C). Different conditions are represented by various colours (black line: baseline, yellow: supported with Impella P2, red: Impella P6). In the RV-PV loop, both VA-ECMO and Impella rendered the RV-PV loop left downward in each ECPELLA support condition. In the LV-PV loop, VA-ECMO shifted the LV-PV loop downward to the left only in the higher Impella support conditions (P6). PV loop pressure–volume loop, LVF left ventricular failure, VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, RVP right ventricular pressure, RVV right ventricular volume, LVP left ventricular pressure, LVV left ventricular volume

Full size image

Protocol 2: impact of ECPELLA on BVF haemodynamics

Figures 5 and 6 represent the haemodynamic changes with ECPELLA in BVF conditions. The general trends were the same as in protocol 1. Under total ECPELLA support, an increase in Impella support level effectively increased total systemic flow and mean AP and markedly decreased LAP. PV loop analyses are shown in Fig. 6 and Additional file 6. The PV loop changes were similar to the results of protocol 1. In higher VA-ECMO conditions, the increase in Impella support level markedly shifted both the RV- and LV–PV loops downward to the left.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Impact of ECPELLA on BVF haemodynamics. Changes in CO (A), total systemic flow (B), mean AP (C), RAP (D), and LAP (E) are shown. An asterisk (*) indicates that the corresponding axis has been inverted to clarify or highlight specific relationships. The general trends were the same as in protocol 1. Under total ECPELLA support, an increase in Impella support level effectively increased total systemic flow and mean AP, and markedly decreased LAP. BVF biventricular failure, VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, CO cardiac output, AP arterial pressure, RAP right atrial pressure, LAP left atrial pressure

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Impact of ECPELLA on the right and left ventricular PV loops on BVF haemodynamics. Three conditions of MCS are shown: Impella alone (A), 2.0 mL/min of VA-ECMO with Impella (B), and 4.0 mL/min of VA-ECMO with Impella (C). Different conditions are represented by various colours (black line: baseline, yellow: supported with Impella P2, red: Impella P6). The PV loop changes were similar to the results of protocol 1. In higher VA-ECMO conditions, the increase in Impella support level markedly shifted both the RV- and LV-PV loops downward to the left. PV loop pressure–volume loop, BVF biventricular failure, MCS mechanical circulatory support, VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, RVP right ventricular pressure, RVV right ventricular volume, LVP left ventricular pressure, LVV left ventricular volume

Full size image

Protocol 3: impact of ECPELLA on BVF with PH haemodynamics

Figures 7 and 8 represent the haemodynamic changes with ECPELLA in BVF with PH. Since the PH further reduced LV filling, an increase in Impella support level excessively reduced LAP, induced LV suction, and limited the Impella support level (less than 1.6 L/min) in each VA-ECMO flow condition. PV loop analyses are shown in Fig. 8 and Additional file 6. In the BVF with PH under ECPELLA support, an increase in Impella support level widened the RV-PV loop but did not change RV-EDV compared to the BVF condition (protocol 2). Higher Impella support level strikingly minimised the LV-PV loop in each VA-ECMO flow condition.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Impact of ECPELLA on BVF with PH haemodynamics. Changes in CO (A), total systemic flow (B), mean AP (C), RAP (D), and LAP (E) are shown. An asterisk (*) indicates that the corresponding axis has been inverted to clarify or highlight specific relationships. Since the PH further reduced LV filling, an increase in Impella support level excessively reduced LAP, induced LV suction, and limited the Impella support level (less than 1.6 L/min) in each VA-ECMO flow condition. BVF biventricular failure, PH pulmonary hypertension, VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, CO cardiac output, AP arterial pressure, RAP right atrial pressure, LAP left atrial pressure

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Impact of ECPELLA on right and left ventricular PV loops on BVF with PH haemodynamics. Three conditions of MCS are shown: Impella alone (A), 2.0 mL/min of VA-ECMO with Impella (B), and 4.0 mL/min of VA-ECMO with Impella (C). Different conditions are represented by various colours (black line: Baseline, yellow: supported with Impella P2, red: Impella P6). In the BVF with PH under ECPELLA support, an increase in Impella support level widened the RV-PV loop but did not change RV-EDV compared to the BVF condition (protocol 2). Higher Impella support level strikingly minimised the LV-PV loop in each VA-ECMO flow condition. PV loop pressure–volume loop, BVF biventricular failure, PH pulmonary hypertension, MCS mechanical circulatory support, VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, RVP right ventricular pressure, RVV right ventricular volume, LVP left ventricular pressure, LVV left ventricular volume

Full size image

Protocol 4: impact of ECEPLLA on global DO2 in the absence and presence of VV-ECMO support

Figure 9 represents global DO2 simulations with low SaO2 due to severe ARF. The changes in global DO2 closely correspond to the changes in systemic flow in the ECPELLA support condition. Thus, the total support of ECPELLA effectively increased global DO2. The elevation of SaO2, using VV-ECMO, increased global DO2 and augmented the effect of Impella support level on global DO2 elevation. In the high PVR condition, the increase in global DO2 with ECPELLA support was limited, reflecting the restricted total systemic flow due to LV suction.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Impact of ECPELLA on global DO2 with and without VV-ECMO Support. Upper panels represent the changes of global DO2 without (SaO2: 40%, A) and with (SaO2: 80%, B) VV-ECMO, and the comparison between the two conditions (C) in BVF supported by ECPELLA. Haemoglobin concentration was set at 10 g/dL. Lower panels represent the changes of global DO2 without (SaO2: 40%, D) and with (SaO2: 80%, E) VV-ECMO, and the comparison between the two conditions (F) in BVF with PH supported by ECPELLA. Different conditions are represented by different colours (light grey line: Impella alone, dark grey line: VA-ECMO with Impella, red line: with VV-ECMO) and markers (round: Impella, triangle: VA-ECMO with Impella). The changes in global DO2 closely correspond to the changes in systemic flow in the ECPELLA support condition. The elevation of SaO2, by using VV-ECMO, increased global DO2 and augmented the effect of Impella support level on global DO2 elevation. DO2 oxygen delivery, VV-ECMO veno-venous membrane oxygenation, VA-ECMO veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, SaO2 arterial oxygen saturation

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, we used cardiovascular simulation to demonstrate the impact of VA-ECMO and Impella on haemodynamics in various cardiovascular conditions and the effect of VV-ECMO on global DO2 in BVF with severe ARF. The major findings of this study were as follows: (1) VA-ECMO increases total systemic flow depending on the flow rate. Meanwhile, Impella effectively increases total systemic flow in total ECPELLA support conditions. (2) ECPELLA can provide RV and LV unloading, while an appropriate increase in Impella support level may induce LV suction, especially in high PVR conditions. (3) The addition of VV-ECMO enhances the global DO2 augmentation effect of Impella in BVF with severe ARF.

The impact of ECPELLA on total systemic flow

We investigated the haemodynamic impacts of VA-ECMO and Impella support levels in various cardiovascular conditions. As shown in Fig. 10, VA-ECMO markedly increased total systemic flow, and the addition of Impella further increased it. Under total ECPELLA support, an increase in Impella support level effectively increased total systemic flow and markedly decreased LAP (Figs. 3, 5 and 7). However, especially in the high PVR condition, an increase in Impella support level excessively decreased LAP and induced LV suction, resulting in limited total systemic flow. ECPELLA has been reported to provide sufficient systemic perfusion with total LV unloading [27] and improve the prognosis for patients through its powerful haemodynamic effects in CS [3]. Impella has been reported to have benefits as an LV venting method for LV distension by VA-ECMO [28]. Our simulation suggested that the efficacy of Impella support in ECPELLA depends on adequate LV filling for stable Impella operation. Optimising the LV filling is difficult because VA-ECMO and PH reduce RV output. Our simulation enables us to understand the optimal haemodynamic management of ECPELLA in several cardiovascular and pump flow conditions.

Fig. 10
figure 10

Impact of ECPELLA on total systemic flow. Data from protocols 1–3 (Figs. 3, 5 and 7) were used. Upper panels represent the impact of VA-ECMO flow changes on total systemic flow in LVF (A), BVF (B), and BVF with PH (C), and the comparison among the three conditions: VA-ECMO + Impella P6, VA-ECMO + Impella P2, and VA-ECMO alone. Lower panels represent the impact of Impella support levels on total systemic flow in LVF (D), BVF (E), and BVF with PH (F), and the comparison among the three conditions: VA-ECMO 4 L/min + Impella, VA-ECMO 2 L/min + Impella, and Impella alone. VA-ECMO markedly increased total systemic flow, and the addition of Impella further increased it. The presence of PH significantly limits the flow-supporting effect of VA-ECMO, Impella and ECPELLA. LVF, left ventricular failure; BVF, biventricular failure; PH, pulmonary hypertension; VA-ECMO, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Full size image

The impact of ECPELLA on LV unloading

The earlier LV unloading can recover LV from acute ischaemic damage [29]. In addition, we also reported that the higher degree of LV unloading by Impella reduces the infarct size in a large animal myocardial infarction model [30]. In this study, we visualised the RV and LV unloading effects of ECPELLA in multiple cardiovascular and pump flow conditions. As shown in Fig. 11, the increase in VA-ECMO flow decreased LV end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) in LVF conditions while increasing it in BVF and BVF with PH conditions. These findings align with our previous research [31], demonstrating that LV workload can vary depending on the balance between reduced LV preload and elevated LV afterload induced by VA-ECMO. ECPELLA shifted the LV-PV loop downward to the left in each VA-ECMO flow and Impella support level (Figs. 4, 6, 8). In addition, RV failure enhances the LV unloading effect by ECPELLA (Fig. 11). Those changes are also documented in the clinical reports. Unoki et al. reported that ECPELLA provides effective LV unloading and minimises the LP-PV loop in clinical simulation studies of acute myocardial infarction with CS [27]. Bouchez et al. reported that decreased RV function or increased PVR shifted the LV–PV loop downward to the left under left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support [32].

Fig. 11
figure 11

Impact of ECPELLA on LV unloading. Data from protocols 1-3 (Figs. 3, 5 and 7) were used. Upper panels represent the impact of VA-ECMO flow changes on LVEDP, a marker of LV unloading, in LVF (A), BVF (B), and BVF with PH (C), and the comparison among the three conditions: VA-ECMO + Impella P6, VA-ECMO + Impella P2, and VA-ECMO alone. Lower panels represent the impact of Impella support levels on LVEDP in LVF (D), BVF (E), and BVF with PH (F), and the comparison among the three conditions: VA-ECMO 4 L/min + Impella, VAECMO 2 L/min + Impella, and Impella alone. the increase in VA-ECMO flow decreased LVEDP in LVF conditions while increasing it in BVF and BVF with PH conditions. In addition, RV failure enhances the LV unloading effect by ECPELLA. LVF, left ventricular failure; BVF, biventricular failure; PH, pulmonary hypertension; LVEDP, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure; VA-ECMO, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Full size image

A major advantage of this simulation is the visualisation of the RV-PV loop, which is difficult to estimate in the clinical setting. An increase in the Impella support level shifted the RV-PV loop to the left in the normal PVR conditions (Figs. 4, 6). This indicates a significant decrease in RV afterload and an increase in RV-SV despite an increase in venous return to RV. Since LAP may contribute significantly more than PVR to RV afterload under normal PVR conditions, LV unloading by Impella decreases RV afterload, resulting in increased RV-CO. Meanwhile, when PVR was high, Impella widened the RV–PV loop but did not change RV-PVA and end-systolic pressure, indicating increases in RV preload and RV–SV without a change in RV afterload. Yourshaw et al. reported that Impella progressively improved RAP to pulmonary artery wedge pressure ratio and decreased RV afterload in 25 patients [33]. Farrar et al. reported that LVAD had a beneficial effect in reducing PAP secondary to a reduction in LAP, while it could increase PAP by increasing RV preload when PVR was fixed [34]. Since Impella changes both RV preload and afterload, the impact of Impella on RV workload is complicated. Further simulation studies considering the clinical situation should be conducted.

The impact of VV-ECMO on global DO2 under ECPELLA

In Fig. 9, we showed the impact of VV-ECMO on global DO2 in BVF and BVF with PH under ECPELLA. The changes in global DO2 closely correspond to the changes in systemic flow in the ECPELLA support condition. Thus, the total support of ECPELLA effectively increased global DO2. The elevation of SaO2 increased global DO2 and augmented the effect of the Impella support level on global DO2 elevation. In shock patients, a significant decrease in DO2 below the critical level can lead to tissue hypoxia, anaerobic metabolism, organ failure and poor outcomes [35]. Although current clinical guidelines for shock management do not provide specific recommendations for global DO2 monitoring, Russell et al. emphasise the importance of monitoring key physiological parameters to optimise DO2 [36]. DO2-guided strategies in cardiopulmonary bypass management have shown the potential to prevent postoperative acute kidney injury [37]. However, according to Hayes et al., managing high DO2 levels may not always be beneficial [38]. Thus, we need to provide individual correction of global DO2 in patients with CS.

As shown in Additional file 7: Fig. S5, haemoglobin concentration is a major contributor to global DO2 under ECPELLA conditions. On the other hand, for the best support strategy considering the optimal haemoglobin concentration, it is crucial to consider not only the global DO2 delivery patterns, but also the local DO2 and the oxygen demand of each organ. Additionally, in conditions where PVR is increased due to hypoxemia, increasing venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) with VV-ECMO may attenuate hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, reduce PVR, and alter haemodynamics under ECPELLA [39]. Therefore, in a clinical setting, we should also consider the possibility of a more complex effect of VV-ECMO on global DO2.

Approaching clinical knowledge gaps through simulation studies

Despite the positive impact on haemodynamics provided by MCS in CS, the prognosis for survival remains poor [12, 40]. It has been reported that patient background, such as age, plays a significant role in this issue [41]. In addition, the complicated management of multiple MCS may also limit the improvement of outcome in patients with severe CS. Therefore, the strategies and timing of weaning from multiple MCS, including VV-ECMO and VAV-ECMO, are still under debate [42, 43]. Our comprehensive simulation analysis may allow the optimisation of multiple MCS management, including the determination of optimal flow settings and the appropriate timing for weaning from MCS.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, primarily due to cardiovascular mathematical modelling. First, the simulation did not consider the variability of cardiovascular and respiratory parameters and anatomical and dynamic changes in valve structures. In clinical, various parameters such as LV contractility, heart rate, and vascular resistance can change due to autonomic nerve activity through baroreceptor or cardiopulmonary reflexes [44]. We adopted the normal higher heart rate (80 bpm) based on several reports of CS [12,13,14]. Meanwhile, Ostadal et al. and Schrage et al. reported higher-than-normal HRs during the acute phase of CS requiring MCS [45, 46]. To develop a more clinically relevant simulator, it is necessary to incorporate the heart rate changes in response to CS condition and its impact of cardiovascular parameters. Increased heart rate can enhance contractility, known as the force-frequency relationship [47]. Furthermore, excessive tachycardia can lead to insufficient relaxation time, potentially causing a reduction in cardiac output, referred to as the incomplete relaxation [48]. Anatomical changes may also affect the haemodynamics in CS with Impella support condition. Mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation may occur in patients with heart failure [49, 50], and the Impella catheter has been associated with the development or worsening of aortic valve regurgitation [51].

Second, our simulation does not account for VAV-ECMO flow diversion, which can dynamically alter oxygenation, systemic flow and oxygen delivery. In the VAV-ECMO circuit, increased venous outflow may paradoxically decrease arterial outflow due to the inherent limitations of total pump flow. Increasing blood delivery to the arterial side can increase systemic flow and global DO2, while compromising regional DO2 in vital organs such as the heart and brain, represented by Harlequin syndrome. On the other hand, increasing blood delivery to the venous side can increase SvO2 and resolve Harlequin syndrome [52], while it may alter global DO2 due to increased SvO2, venous cannula recirculation and reduced systemic blood flow. Therefore, future research should focus on developing dynamic models that incorporate ECMO flow diversion and regional DO2 distribution to determine the optimal VAV-ECMO flow setting.

Third, in recent years, the importance of integrating micro- and microcirculation management in CS patients has been recognised [53]. Thus, various studies, including methods to assess tissue oxygenation and treatments, are being conducted [54, 55]. Incorporating the effects of tissue oxygenation and microcirculatory changes in the capillary compartment into our simulation is an important next step.

Fourth, our simulation provided a comprehensive understanding of haemodynamic changes under ECPELLA support in various cardiovascular situations. Currently, the simulation aims to help medical staff make optimal decisions by predicting and demonstrating numerous haemodynamic situations under ECPELLA. However, to develop a simulator that provides the best support strategy for each patient individually and instantaneously, it is necessary to automatically estimate each patient's cardiovascular parameters from the haemodynamic monitor. In addition, we need to consider patient-specific oxygen demands in the whole body and vital organs, as well as the individual patient backgrounds such as a causal disease of CS and comorbidities. In the future, the personalised simulator may be able to optimise CS treatments, including drug therapies, transfusions, and MCS settings, which are currently based on clinician experience.

Conclusions

The optimal ECPELLA support increased total systemic flow and achieved RV and LV unloading. In BVF with severe ARF, the VV-ECMO effectively improves global DO2 in total ECPELLA support. Our simulation provides a comprehensive understanding of ECPELLA management in patients with severe CS.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant data obtained and analysed during this study are presented in the main text and the supplement.

Abbreviations

ARF:

Acute respiratory failure

bpm:

Beats per minute

BVF:

Biventricular failure

CO:

Cardiac output

CS:

Cardiogenic shock

DO2 :

Oxygen delivery

EDPVR:

End-diastolic pressure–volume relationship

E es :

End-systolic elastance

ESPVR:

End-systolic pressure–volume relationship

Hb:

Haemoglobin concentration

H–Q curve:

Head-capacity curve

LAP:

Left atrial pressure

LV:

Left ventricle

LVAD:

Left ventricular assist device

LVEDP:

Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure

LVF:

Left ventricular failure

MCS:

Mechanical circulatory support

PH:

Pulmonary hypertension

PV loop:

Pressure–volume loop

PVA:

Pressure–volume area

PVR:

Pulmonary vascular resistance

RAP:

Right atrial pressure

RV:

Right ventricle

SaO2 :

Arterial oxygen saturation

SvO2 :

Venous oxygen saturation

SVR:

Systemic vascular resistance

SW:

Stroke work

VA-ECMO:

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

VV-ECMO:

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

WU:

Wood units

Zc:

Pulmonary vascular impedance

References

  1. Osman M, Syed M, Patibandla S, Sulaiman S, Kheiri B, Shah MK, Bianco C, Balla S, Patel B (2021) Fifteen-year trends in incidence of cardiogenic shock hospitalization and in-hospital mortality in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc 10(15):e021061. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.021061

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Koziol KJ, Isath A, Rao S, Gregory V, Ohira S, Van Diepen S, Lorusso R, Krittanawong C (2023) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in management of cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med 12(17):5576. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12175576

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhatia K, Jain V, Hendrickson MJ, Aggarwal D, Aguilar-Gallardo JS, Lopez PD, Narasimhan B, Wu L, Arora S, Joshi A, Tomey MI, Mahmood K, Qamar A, Birati EY, Fox A (2022) Meta-analysis comparing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with or without impella in patients with cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 15(181):94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.06.059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nakamura M, Imamura T (2020) Practical management of ECPELLA. Int Heart J 61(6):1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1536/ihj.20-172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, Buller CE, Jacobs AK, Slater JN, Col J, McKinlay SM, LeJemtel TH (1999) Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 341(9):625–634. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199908263410901

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kluis A, Rawitscher D, Afzal AM, DiMaio JM, George TJ (2023) Impella 55 and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to ventricular assist device in cardiopulmonary failure. Proceedings (Bayl Univ Med Cent) 36(2):208–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2022.2158772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Saku K, Yokota S, Nishikawa T, Kinugawa K (2022) Interventional heart failure therapy: a new concept fighting against heart failure. J Cardiol 80(2):101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.11.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hatle L, Brubakk A, Tromsdal A, Angelsen B (1978) Noninvasive assessment of pressure drop in mitral stenosis by Doppler ultrasound. Br Heart J 40(2):131–140. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.40.2.131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Suga H, Sagawa K, Shoukas AA (1973) Load independence of the instantaneous pressure-volume ratio of the canine left ventricle and effects of epinephrine and heart rate on the ratio. Circ Res 32(3):314–322. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.res.32.3.314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mirsky I (1976) Assessment of passive elastic stiffness of cardiac muscle: mathematical concepts, physiologic and clinical considerations, directions of future research. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 18(4):277–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0033-0620(76)90023-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Unoki T, Saku K, Kametani M, Konami Y, Taguchi E, Sawamura T, Nakao K, Sakamoto T (2022) Impella motor current amplitude reflects the degree of left ventricular unloading under ECPELLA support. Int Heart J 63(6):1187–1193. https://doi.org/10.1536/ihj.22-237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Akin I, Behnes M, Rassaf T, Mahabadi AA, Lehmann R, Eitel I, Graf T, Seidler T, Schuster A, Skurk C, Duerschmied D, Clemmensen P, Hennersdorf M, Fichtlscherer S, Voigt I, Seyfarth M, John S, Ewen S, Linke A, Tigges E, Nordbeck P, Bruch L, Jung C, Franz J, Lauten P, Goslar T, Feistritzer HJ, Pöss J, Kirchhof E, Ouarrak T, Schneider S, Desch S, Freund A, Investigators ECLS-SHOCK (2023) Extracorporeal life support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 389(14):1286–1297. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2307227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning JM, Pappalardo F, Pieri M, Skurk C, Lauten A, Landmesser U, Westenfeld R, Horn P, Pauschinger M, Eckner D, Twerenbold R, Nordbeck P, Salinger T, Abel P, Empen K, Busch MC, Felix SB, Sieweke JT, Møller JE, Pareek N, Hill J, MacCarthy P, Bergmann MW, Henriques JPS, Möbius-Winkler S, Schulze PC, Ouarrak T, Zeymer U, Schneider S, Blankenberg S, Thiele H, Schäfer A, Westermann D (2019) Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation 139(10):1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ueki Y, Mohri M, Matoba T, Tsujita Y, Yamasaki M, Tachibana E, Yonemoto N, Nagao K (2016) Characteristics and predictors of mortality in patients with cardiovascular shock in Japan—results from the Japanese Circulation Society Cardiovascular Shock Registry. Circ J 80(4):852–859. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-16-0125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Baicu CF, Zile MR, Aurigemma GP, Gaasch WH (2005) Left ventricular systolic performance, function, and contractility in patients with diastolic heart failure. Circulation 111(18):2306–2312. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000164273.57823.26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McCabe C, White PA, Hoole SP, Axell RG, Priest AN, Gopalan D, Taboada D, MacKenzie Ross R, Morrell NW, Shapiro LM, Pepke-Zaba J (2014) Right ventricular dysfunction in chronic thromboembolic obstruction of the pulmonary artery: a pressure-volume study using the conductance catheter. J Appl Physiol (1985) 116(4):355–363. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01123.2013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rienzo M, Imbault J, El Boustani Y, Beurton A, Carlos Sampedrano C, Pasdois P, Pernot M, Bernus O, Haïssaguerre M, Couffinhal T, Ouattara A (2020) A total closed chest sheep model of cardiogenic shock by percutaneous intracoronary ethanol injection. Sci Rep 10(1):12417. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68571-5

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kerbaul F, By Y, Gariboldi V, Mekkaoui C, Fesler P, Collart F, Brimioulle S, Jammes Y, Ruf J, Guieu R (2011) Acute pulmonary embolism decreases adenosine plasma levels in anesthetized pigs. ISRN Cardiol 2011:750301. https://doi.org/10.5402/2011/750301

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kearney K, Song N, Bart N, Kotlyar E, Lau E, Jabbour A, Hayward CS, Muller DWM, Adji A (2023) Prognostic role of pulmonary impedance estimation to predict right ventricular dysfunction in pulmonary hypertension. ESC Heart Fail 10(3):1811–1821. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.14180

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Suga H (1990) Ventricular energetics. Physiol Rev 70(2):247–277. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1990.70.2.247

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Castro RH, Bakker J (2019) Oxygen transport and tissue utilization. In: Lima AAP (ed) Monitoring tissue perfusion in shock. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Møller JE, Hassager C, Bonello L, Delmas C, Pappalardo F (2021) Pump flow setting and assessment of unloading in clinical practice. Eur Heart J 23(Suppl A):A23–A26. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/suab004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Martucci G, Schmidt M, Agerstrand C, Tabatabai A, Tuzzolino F, Giani M, Ramanan R, Grasselli G, Schellongowski P, Riera J, Hssain AA, Duburcq T, Gorjup V, De Pascale G, Buabbas S, Gannon WD, Jeon K, Trethowan B, Fanelli V, Chico JI, Balik M, Broman LM, Pesenti A, Combes A, Ranieri MV, Foti G, Buscher H, Tanaka K, Lorusso R, Arcadipane A, Brodie D, International ECMO Network (ECMONet) (2023) Transfusion practice in patients receiving VV ECMO (PROTECMO): a prospective, multicentre, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 11(3):245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00353-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tonna JE, Abrams D, Brodie D, Greenwood JC, Rubio Mateo-Sidron JA, Usman A, Fan E (2021) Management of adult patients supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO): guideline from the extracorporeal life support organization (ELSO). ASAIO J 67(6):601–610. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000001432

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cakici M, Gumus F, Ozcinar E, Baran C, Bermede O, Inan MB, Durdu MS, Sirlak M, Akar AR (2018) Controlled flow diversion in hybrid venoarterial-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 26(1):112–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivx259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jones E, Randall EB, Hummel SL, Cameron DM, Beard DA, Carlson BE (2021) Phenotyping heart failure using model-based analysis and physiology-informed machine learning. J Physiol 599(22):4991–5013. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP281845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Unoki T, Saku K, Kametani M, Yufu T, Yamamuro M, Taguchi E, Sawamura T, Nakao K, Sakamoto T (2023) Three cases of LMT-STEMI with cardiogenic shock under ECPELLA support with different levels of left ventricular unloading. J Coronary Artery 29(2):4991–5013. https://doi.org/10.7793/jcad.29.23-00001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Donker DW, Brodie D, Henriques JPS, Broomé M (2019) Left ventricular unloading during veno-arterial ECMO: a simulation study. ASAIO J 65(1):11–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000000755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Swain L, Reyelt L, Bhave S, Qiao X, Thomas CJ, Zweck E, Crowley P, Boggins C, Esposito M, Chin M, Karas RH, O’Neill W, Kapur NK (2020) Transvalvular ventricular unloading before reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 76(6):684–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Saku K, Kakino T, Arimura T, Sunagawa G, Nishikawa T, Sakamoto T, Kishi T, Tsutsui H, Sunagawa K (2018) Left ventricular mechanical unloading by total support of impella in myocardial infarction reduces infarct size, preserves left ventricular function, and prevents subsequent heart failure in dogs. Circ Heart Fail 11(5):e004397. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.117.004397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sakamoto K, Saku K, Kishi T, Kakino T, Tanaka A, Sakamoto T, Ide T, Sunagawa K (2015) Prediction of the impact of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on hemodynamics. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 308(8):H921–H930. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00603.2014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bouchez S, Van Belleghem Y, De Somer F, De Pauw M, Stroobandt R, Wouters P (2019) Haemodynamic management of patients with left ventricular assist devices using echocardiography: the essentials. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 20(4):373–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yourshaw JP, Mishra P, Armstrong MC, Ramu B, Craig ML, Van Bakel AB, Steinberg DH, DiSalvo TG, Tedford RJ, Houston BA (2019) Effects of percutaneous LVAD support on right ventricular load and adaptation j cardiovasc. Transl Res 12(2):142–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-018-9806-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Farrar DJ, Compton PG, Hershon JJ, Fonger JD, Hill JD (1985) Right heart interaction with the mechanically assisted left heart. World J Surg 9(1):89–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01656260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Barbee RW, Reynolds PS, Ward KR (2010) Assessing shock resuscitation strategies by oxygen debt repayment. Shock 33(2):113–122. https://doi.org/10.1097/SHK.0b013e3181b8569d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Russell A, Rivers EP, Giri PC, Jaehne AK, Nguyen HB (2020) A Physiologic approach to hemodynamic monitoring and optimizing oxygen delivery in shock resuscitation. J Clin Med 9(7):2052. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072052

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mukaida H, Matsushita S, Yamamoto T, Minami Y, Sato G, Asai T, Amano A (2023) Oxygen delivery-guided perfusion for the prevention of acute kidney injury: a randomized controlled trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 165(2):750-760.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.03.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hayes MA, Timmins AC, Yau EH, Palazzo M, Hinds CJ, Watson D (1994) Elevation of systemic oxygen delivery in the treatment of critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 330(24):1717–1722. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199406163302404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Besen BAMP, Romano TG, Zigaib R, Mendes PV, Melro LMG, Park M (2019) Oxygen delivery, carbon dioxide removal, energy transfer to lungs and pulmonary hypertension behavior during venous-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: a mathematical modeling approach. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 31(2):113–121. https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20190018

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Bogerd M, Ten Berg S, Peters EJ, Vlaar APJ, Engström AE, Otterspoor LC, Jung C, Westermann D, Pöss J, Thiele H, Schrage B, Henriques JPS (2023) Impella and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Heart Fail 25(11):2021–2031. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Riera J, Bělohlávek J, Jung C (2023) De senectute and the art of medicine: how old is too old for ECMO in cardiogenic shock? Intensive Care Med 49(12):1511–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07251-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tonetti T, Zanella A, Pérez-Torres D, Grasselli G, Ranieri VM (2023) Current knowledge gaps in extracorporeal respiratory support. Intensive Care Med Exp 11(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00563-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Heymer J, Hein A, Ott M, Schilling T, Räpple D (2023) Weaning assessment of veno-arteriovenous (V-AV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Intensive Care Med Exp 11(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00538-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Triposkiadis F, Karayannis G, Giamouzis G, Skoularigis J, Louridas G, Butler J (2009) The sympathetic nervous system in heart failure physiology, pathophysiology, and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(19):1747–1762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.05.015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ostadal P, Rokyta R, Karasek J, Kruger A, Vondrakova D, Janotka M, Naar J, Smalcova J, Hubatova M, Hromadka M, Volovar S, Seyfrydova M, Jarkovsky J, Svoboda M, Linhart A, Belohlavek J, ECMO-CS Investigators (2023) Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the therapy of cardiogenic shock: results of the ECMO-CS randomized clinical trial. Circulation 147(6):454–464. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062949

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schrage B, Becher PM, Bernhardt A, Bezerra H, Blankenberg S, Brunner S, Colson P, CudemusDeseda G, Dabboura S, Eckner D, Eden M, Eitel I, Frank D, Frey N, Funamoto M, Goßling A, Graf T, Hagl C, Kirchhof P, Kupka D, Landmesser U, Lipinski J, Lopes M, Majunke N, Maniuc O, McGrath D, Möbius-Winkler S, Morrow DA, Mourad M, Noel C, Nordbeck P, Orban M, Pappalardo F, Patel SM, Pauschinger M, Pazzanese V, Reichenspurner H, Sandri M, Schulze PC, Schwinger RHG, Sinning JM, Aksoy A, Skurk C, Szczanowicz L, Thiele H, Tietz F, Varshney A, Wechsler L, Westermann D (2020) Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an International Multicenter Cohort Study. Circulation 142(22):2095–2106. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Maughan WL, Sunagawa K, Burkhoff D, Graves WL Jr, Hunter WC, Sagawa K (1985) Effect of heart rate on the canine end-systolic pressure-volume relationship. Circulation 72(3):654–659. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.72.3.654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lima JA, Weiss JL, Guzman PA, Weisfeldt ML, Reid PR, Traill TA (1983) Incomplete filling and incoordinate contraction as mechanisms of hypotension during ventricular tachycardia in man. Circulation 68(5):928–938. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.68.5.928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Arora S, Sivaraj K, Hendrickson M, Chang PP, Weickert T, Qamar A, Vaduganathan M, Caughey MC, Pandey A, Cavender MA, Rosamond W, Vavalle JP (2021) Prevalence and prognostic significance of mitral regurgitation in acute decompensated heart failure: the ARIC study. JACC Heart Fail 9(3):179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2020.09.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Cocianni D, Stolfo D, Perotto M, Contessi S, Barbisan D, Savonitto G, Rizzi JG, Barbati G, Merlo M, Altinier A, Sinagra G (2023) Association of tricuspid regurgitation with outcome in acute heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 16(7):566–576. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.122.014988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Butala B, Yu R, Schorr R, Gologorsky E (2020) Periprocedural dynamics of aortic regurgitation in patients supported with an impella left ventricular assist device. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 34(3):659–662. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2019.09.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Shimizu S, Shimano M, Shibata Y, Hanaki Y, Kamiya H, Morimoto R, Okumura T, Murohara T (2020) Successful weaning from veno-arterial ECMO and Impella2.5 by veno-venous and arterial ECMO (v-ECPELLA) for a patient with acute myocardial infarction complicated by severe lung injury. J Cardiol Cases 22(3):103–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jccase.2020.05.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Duranteau J, De Backer D, Donadello K, Shapiro NI, Hutchings SD, Rovas A, Legrand M, Harrois A, Ince C (2023) The future of intensive care: the study of the microcirculation will help to guide our therapies. Crit Care 27(1):190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04474-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hilty MP, Jung C (2023) Tissue oxygenation: how to measure, how much to target. Intensive Care Med Exp 11(1):64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-023-00551-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bruno RR, Wollborn J, Fengler K, Flick M, Wunder C, Allgäuer S, Thiele H, Schemmelmann M, Hornemann J, Moecke HME, Demirtas F, Palici L, Franz M, Saugel B, Kattan E, De Backer D, Bakker J, Hernandez G, Kelm M, Jung C (2023) Direct assessment of microcirculation in shock: a randomized-controlled multicenter study. Intensive Care Med 49(6):645–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-023-07098-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Department of Cardiovascular Dynamics National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center staff. We also would like to sincerely thank Mathworks, Inc. for their invaluable support and contributions to this research. We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

Funding

This study was partly supported by grants from Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (JSPS KAKENHI 22K08222), the research program of Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (23hk0102085h0002, 23uk1024007h0001), the research program of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (SCOPE: JP225006004), the Intramural Research Fund for Cardiovascular Diseases of National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Centre (21-2-7, 21-2-9), the research grant from JST (JPMJPF2018), the research grant from Abiomed, Inc., and the research grant from NTT-Research, Inc.. The authors confirm that these parties did not influence the study design, contents of the article, or selection of this journal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiovascular Dynamics, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center Research Institute, 6-1 Kishibe-Shimmachi, Suita, Osaka, 564-8565, Japan

    Hiroki Matsushita, Keita Saku, Shohei Yokota, Kei Sato, Hidetaka Morita, Yuki Yoshida, Masafumi Fukumitsu, Kazunori Uemura & Toru Kawada

  2. Department of Research Promotion and Management, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center Research Institute, Suita, Japan

    Takuya Nishikawa

  3. NTTR-NCVC Bio Digital Twin Centre, National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center Research Institute, Suita, Japan

    Kazunori Uemura

  4. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Ken Yamaura

Authors
  1. Hiroki Matsushita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keita Saku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takuya Nishikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shohei Yokota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kei Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hidetaka Morita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yuki Yoshida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masafumi Fukumitsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kazunori Uemura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Toru Kawada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ken Yamaura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HM and KS designed the study, performed the simulation, evaluated the data, and drafted the manuscript. KS, TN, SY, KS, HM, YY, MF, KU, and TK designed the study and evaluated the data. KY evaluated the data and revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keita Saku.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study involved computational simulations and did not include human participants, animals, or field studies. As such, traditional ethics approval and consent were not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Matsushita H, Nishikawa T, Yokota S, Sato K, Morita H, Yoshida Y, Fukumitsu M, Uemura K, Kawada T, and Yamaura K have nothing to declare. Saku K received research funding from Abiomed, Inc., NTT Research, Inc., Asahi Kasei ZOLL Medical Corporation, Neuroceuticals Inc., and Zeon Medical Inc., and honoraria from Abiomed Japan K.K., Mallinckrodt Pharma K.K., and Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:

Cardiovascular simulation of ECPELLA haemodynamics.

Additional file 2:

Head‒capacity (H‒Q) curve of the Impella CP device.

Additional file 3:

Relationship between the approximate curves and the published H‒Q curves (Instructions for Use and Clinical Reference Manual of Impella CP) at each Impella P level.

Additional file 4:

Description of pressure-volume area (PVA).

Additional file 5:

Representative time course of haemodynamic parameters in a haemodynamic simulation of ECPELLA.

Additional file 6: 

Impact of VA-ECMO flow and Impella support level on the right and left ventricular workload in several cardiac functions.

Additional file 7:

Impact of haemoglobin concentration on global DO2 supported by ECPELLA with VV-ECMO (SaO2: 80%).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matsushita, H., Saku, K., Nishikawa, T. et al. The impact of ECPELLA on haemodynamics and global oxygen delivery: a comprehensive simulation of biventricular failure. ICMx 12, 13 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-024-00599-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-024-00599-7

Keywords