Background The Impella® is a continuous axial flow pump that utilizes a purge solution to create a positive pressure barrier and prevent pump thrombosis. Both the bicarbonate-based (BBPS) and heparin-based purge solutions (HBPS) are FDA-approved, but solution choice varies in clinical practice. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of the BBPS versus HBPS when BBPS is used as the standard of care.

Methods This study was a retrospective analysis at two tertiary academic medical centers within the same health-system. Adult patients were included if they required an Impella® device and received either the BBPS or HBPS for at least 72 hours between July 2022 and October 2023. The major endpoint was a composite outcome of pump thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding events defined by International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Pump thrombosis was defined as incidence of two or more purge pressures greater than 800 mmHg, the use of thrombolytic purge solution, or thrombus noted on imaging. Minor endpoints included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, ICU length of stay, and vascular complications.

Results A total of 178 patients were evaluated of which 66 were included. The composite outcome occurred in 23 of 38 patients (60.5%) in the BBPS group and 17 of 28 patients (60.7%) in the HBPS group (p=0.99). There was no difference in pump thrombosis, stroke or bleeding events between cohorts. Vascular events were noted in 5 (17.9%) of HBPS and 13 (34.2%) of BBPS group (p=0.14). Additional minor endpoints were not significantly different between the groups.

Conclusions This study found no differences in pump thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding events in the BBPS versus HBPS group. Although these findings are supportive of utilizing BBPS as standard of care, larger, multi-center studies are needed to confirm differences in bleeding or thrombotic outcomes.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

No funding was received.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The protocol of this retrospective study was approved by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board Protocol #2023P002761.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data may be made available to reviewers as requested.