Open Access

Maryna Masyuk, Peter Abel, Martin Hug, Bernhard Wernly, Assad Haneya, Stefan Sack, Konstantinos Sideris, Nicolas Langwieser, Tobias Graf, Georg Fuernau, Marcus Franz, Ralf Westenfeld, Malte Kelm, Stephan B. Felix, Christian Jung

• Abstract The frequency of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device application has increased in recent years. Besides implantation in the emergency setting, such as circulatory arrest, MCS is also increasingly used electively to ensure hemodynamic stability in high‐risk patients, for example, during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), valve interventions or off‐pump coronary bypass surgery. Lifebridge (Zoll Medical GmbH, Germany) is a compact percutaneous MCS device widely used in daily clinical routine. The present study aimed to investigate the indications, feasibility, and outcomes after use of Lifebridge in cardiac interventions, evaluating a large‐scale multicenter database. A total of 60 tertiary cardiovascular centers were questioned regarding application and short‐term outcomes after the use of the Lifebridge system (n = 160 patients). Out of these 60 centers, eight consented to participate in the study (n = 39 patients), where detailed data were collected using standardized questionnaires. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patient population, procedural as well as follow‐up data were recorded and analyzed. In 60 interrogated centers, Lifebridge was used in 74% of emergency cases and 26% in the setting of planned interventions. The subcohort interrogated in detail displayed the same distribution of application scenarios, while the main cardiovascular procedure was high‐risk PCI (82%). All patients were successfully weaned from the device and 92% (n = 36) of the patients studied in detail survived after 30 days. As assessed 30 days after insertion of the device, bleeding requiring red blood cell (RBC) transfusion constituted the main complication, occurring in 49% of cases. In our analysis of clinical data, the use of Lifebridge in cardiac intervention was shown to be feasible. Further prospective studies are warranted to identify patients who benefit from hemodynamic MCS support despite the increased rate of RBC transfusion due to challenges in access sites during cardiovascular procedures.