Mechanical Support in Early Cardiogenic Shock: What Is the Role of Intra-aortic Balloon Counterpulsation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aim to summarize recent insights and provide an up-to-date overview on the role of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation in cardiogenic shock (CS). RECENT FINDINGS: In the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMICS), IABP did not lower mortality. However, recent data suggest a role for IABP in patients who have persistent ischemia after revascularization. Moreover, in the growing population of CS not caused by acute coronary syndrome (ACS), multiple retrospective studies and one small RCT report on significant hemodynamic improvement following (early) initiation of IABP support, which allowed bridging of most patients to recovery or definitive therapies like heart transplant or a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Routine use of IABP in patients with AMICS is not recommended, but many patients with CS either from ischemic or non-ischemic cause may benefit from IABP at least for hemodynamic improvement in the short term. There is a need for a larger RCT regarding the role of IABP in selected patients with ACS, as well as in patients with non-ACS CS.

Efficacy of levosimendan infusion in patients undergoing a left ventricular assist device implant in a propensity score matched analysis of the EUROMACS registry-the Euro LEVO-LVAD study.

OBJECTIVES: Early right-sided heart failure (RHF) was seen in 22% of recipients of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS). However, the optimal treatment of post-LVAD RHF is not well known. Levosimendan has proven to be effective in patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with end-stage heart failure. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan on post-LVAD RHF and 30-day and 1-year mortality. METHODS: The EUROMACS Registry was used to identify adults with mainstream continuous-flow LVAD implants who were treated with preoperative levosimendan compared to a propensity matched control cohort. RESULTS: In total, 3661 patients received mainstream LVAD, of which 399 (11%) were treated with levosimendan pre-LVAD. Patients given levosimendan had a higher EUROMACS RHF score [4 (2- 5.5) vs 2 (2- 4); P < 0.001], received more right ventricular assist devices (RVAD) [32 (8%) vs 178 (5.5%); P = 0.038] and stayed longer in the intensive care unit post-LVAD implant [19 (8-35) vs 11(5-25); P < 0.001]. Yet, there was no significant difference in the rate of RHF, 30-day, or 1-year mortality. Also, in the matched cohort (357 patients taking levosimendan compared to an average of 622 controls across 20 imputations), we found no evidence for a difference in postoperative severe RHF, RVAD implant rate, length of stay in the intensive care unit or 30-day and 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of the EUROMACS registry, we found no evidence for an association between levosimendan and early RHF or death, albeit patients taking levosimendan had much higher risk profiles. For a definitive conclusion, a multicentre, randomized study is warranted.