Status 2 upgrade indication impacts posttransplant mortality in patients bridged with intraaortic balloon pump in the new heart allocation system.

To evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing heart transplants (HTs) using an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) under exception status. Adult patients supported by an IABP who underwent HT between November 18, 2018, and December 31, 2020, as documented in the United Network for Organ Sharing, were included. Patients were stratified according to requests for exception status. Kaplan-Meier methodology was used to look for differences in survival between groups. A total of 1284 patients were included; 492 (38.3%) were transplanted with an IABP under exception status. Exception status patients had higher body mass index, were more likely to be Black, and had longer waitlist times. Exception status patients received organs from younger donors, had a shorter ischemic time, and had a higher frequency of sex mismatch. The 1-year posttransplant survival was 93% for the nonexception and 88% for the exception IABP patients (hazard ratio: 1.85 [95% confidence interval: 1.12-2.86, P = .006]). The most common reason for requesting an exception status was inability to meet blood pressure criteria for extension (37% of patients). The most common reason for an extension request for an exception status was right ventricular dysfunction (24%). IABP patients transplanted under exception status have an increased 1-year mortality rate posttransplant compared with those without exception status.

Volume-Outcome Relationships for Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a major scenario for the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), particularly when complicated by cardiogenic shock, although the utilization of mechanical circulatory support devices varies widely per hospital. We evaluated the relationship, at the hospital level, between the volume of IABP use and mortality in AMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a Japanese nationwide administrative database, 26,490 patients with AMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 154 hospitals were included in this study. The primary endpoint was the observed-to-predicted in-hospital mortality ratio. Predicted mortality per patient was calculated using baseline variables and averaged for each hospital. The associations among PCI volume for AMI, observed and predicted in-hospital mortality, and observed and predicted IABP use were assessed per hospital. Of 26,490 patients, 2,959 (11.2%) were treated with IABP and 1,283 (4.8%) died during hospitalization. The annualized number of uses of IABP per hospital in AMI was 4.5. In lower-volume primary PCI centers, IABP was more likely to be underused than expected, and the observed-to-predicted in-hospital mortality ratio was higher than in higher-volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: A lower annual number of IABP use was associated with an increased mortality risk at the hospital level, suggesting that IABP use can be an institutional quality indicator in the setting of AMI.

In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With Concomitant Use of Impella vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump　- A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Japanese Claims-Based Database.

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) necessitating peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) often require an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella for unloading; however, comparative effectiveness data are currently lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using Diagnosis Procedure Combination data from approximately 1,200 Japanese acute care hospitals (April 2018-March 2022), we identified 940 patients aged ≥18 years with CS necessitating peripheral VA-ECMO along with IABP (ECMO-IABP; n=801) or Impella (ECPella; n=139) within 48 h of admission. Propensity score matching (126 pairs) indicated comparable in-hospital mortality between the ECPella and ECMO-IABP groups (50.8% vs. 50.0%, respectively; P=1.000). However, the ECPella cohort was on mechanical ventilator support for longer (median [interquartile range] 11.5 [5.0-20.8] vs. 9.0 [4.0-16.8] days; P=0.008) and had a longer hospital stay (median [interquartile range] 32.5 [12.0-59.0] vs. 23.0 [6.3-43.0] days; P=0.017) than the ECMO-IABP cohort. In addition, medical costs were higher for the ECPella than ECMO-IABP group (median [interquartile range] 9.09 [7.20-12.20] vs. 5.23 [3.41-7.00] million Japanese yen; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our nationwide study could not demonstrate compelling evidence to support the superior efficacy of Impella over IABP in reducing in-hospital mortality among patients with CS necessitating VA-ECMO. Further investigations are imperative to determine the clinical situations in which the potential effect of Impella can be maximized.

Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used for cardiogenic shock (CS). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate which MCS strategy offers advantages. METHODS: A systemic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies included double-blind, randomized controlled, and observational trials, with 30-day follow-ups. Paired independent researchers conducted the screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and consistency and heterogeneity assessment. RESULTS: We included 39 studies (1 report). No significant difference in 30-day mortality was noted between venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and VA-ECMO plus Impella, Impella, and medical therapy. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the optimal ranking of the interventions was surgical venting plus VA-ECMO, medical therapy, VA-ECMO plus Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, Tandem Heart, VA-ECMO, and Impella plus IABP. Regarding in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the forest plot showed low heterogeneity. The results of the node-splitting approach showed that direct and indirect comparisons had a relatively high consistency. CONCLUSIONS: IABP more effectively reduce the incidence of 30-day mortality compared with VA-ECMO and Impella for the treatment of CS.

Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients with Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support.

BACKGROUND: Although scoring systems are widely used to predict outcomes in postcardiac arrest cardiogenic shock (CS) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), data concerning the accuracy of these scores to predict mortality of patients treated with Impella in this setting are lacking. Thus, we aimed to evaluate as well as to compare the prognostic accuracy of acute physiology and chronic health II (APACHE II), simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA), the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), CardShock, the prediction of cardiogenic shock outcome for AMI patients salvaged by VA-ECMO (ENCOURAGE), and the survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (SAVE) score in patients with OHCA refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella 2.5 or CP. METHODS: Retrospective study of 65 consecutive Impella 2.5 and 32 CP patients treated in our cardiac arrest center from September 2015 until June 2020. RESULTS: Overall survival to discharge was 44.3%. The expected mortality according to scores was SOFA 70%, SAPS II 90%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 50%, and SAVE score 70% in the 2.5 group; SOFA 70%, SAPS II 85%, IABP shock 55%, CardShock 80%, APACHE II 85%, ENCOURAGE 75%, and SAVE score 70% in the CP group. The ENCOURAGE score was the most effective predictive model of mortality outcome presenting a moderate area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79, followed by the CardShock, APACHE II, IABP, and SAPS score. These derived an AUC between 0.71 and 0.78. The SOFA and the SAVE scores failed to predict the outcome in this particular setting of refractory CS after OHCA due to an AMI. CONCLUSION: The available intensive care and newly developed CS scores offered only a moderate prognostic accuracy for outcomes in OHCA patients with refractory CS due to an AMI treated with Impella. A new score is needed in order to guide the therapy in these patients.

Comparison of Safety between Different Kinds of Heparins in Patients Receiving Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of low molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients receiving intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 344 patients receiving IABP for cardiogenic shock, severe heart failure, ventricular septal rupture, or mitral valve prolapse due to AMI. A total of 161 patients received UFH (a bolus injection 70 U/kg immediately after IABP, followed by infusion at a rate of 15 U/kg/hour and titration to for 50 to 70 seconds of activated partial thromboplastin time. A total of 183 patients received LMWH (subcutaneous injection of 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours for 5 to 7 days and 1.0 mg/kg every 24 hours thereafter). Events of ischemia, arterial thrombosis or embolism, and bleeding during IABP were evaluated. Major bleeding was defined as a hemoglobin decrease by >50 g/L (vs. prior to IABP) or bleeding that caused hemodynamic shock or life-threatening or requiring blood transfusion. RESULTS: Subjects receiving UFH and LMWH did not differ in baseline characteristics. Ischemia was noted in five (3.1%) and two (1.1%) subjects in UFH and LMWH groups, respectively. Arterial thromboembolism occurred in three (1.9%) subjects in the UFH group, but not in the LMWH group. Logistic regression analysis failed to reveal an association between ischemia or bleeding with heparin type. Major bleeding occurred in 16 (9.9%) and six (3.3%) patients in the UFH and LWMH groups, respectively (p = 0.014). Regression analysis indicated that LMWH is associated with less major bleeding. CONCLUSION: LMWH could reduce the risk of major bleeding in patients receiving IABP. Whether LMWH could reduce arterial thromboembolism needs further investigation.

Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with use of the Impella device compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS. METHODS: Data of patients with AMI-CS treated with the Impella device at European tertiary care hospitals were collected retrospectively. All patients underwent early revascularization and received optimal medical treatment. Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 372 patients were identified and included in this analysis. These patients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. The following baseline criteria were used as matching parameters: age, sex, mechanical ventilation, ejection fraction, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lactate. Primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In total, 237 patients treated with an Impella could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. Baseline parameters were similarly distributed after matching. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (48.5% versus 46.4%, P=0.64). Severe or life-threatening bleeding (8.5% versus 3.0%, P<0.01) and peripheral vascular complications (9.8% versus 3.8%, P=0.01) occurred significantly more often in the Impella group. Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patients with AMI-CS, the use of an Impella device was not associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy. To further evaluate this, a large randomized trial is warranted to determine the effect of the Impella device on outcome in patients with AMI-CS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03313687.

Outcome of rescue ablation in patients with refractory ventricular electrical storm requiring mechanical circulation support.

BACKGROUND: The management of refractory electrical storm (ES) requiring mechanical circulation support (MCS) remains a clinical challenge in structural heart disease (SHD). OBJECTIVE: The study sought to explore the 30-day and 1-year outcome of rescue ablation for refractory ES requiring MCS in SHD. METHODS: A total of 81 patients (mean age: 55.3 ± 18.9, 73 men [90.1%]) undergoing ablation were investigated, including 26 patients with ES requiring MCS (group 1) and 55 patients without (group 2). The 30-day and 1-year outcome, including mortality and recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VAs) receiving appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillators therapies, were assessed. RESULTS: The patients in group 1 were characterized by older age, more ischemic cardiomyopathies, worse left ventricular ejection fraction, and more comorbidities. Thirty days after ablation, overall events were seen in 15 patients (mortality in 10 and recurrent VA in 7), including pumping failure-related mortality in 6 (60%). During a 30-day follow-up, higher mortality was noted in group 1. After a 1-year follow-up, in spite of the higher mortality in group 1 (P < .001), the overall events and VA recurrences were similar between these two groups (P = .154 and P = .466, respectively). There was a significant reduction of VA burden in both groups and two patients had recurrent ES. CONCLUSION: Higher 30-day mortality was observed in patients undergoing rescue ablation for refractory ES requiring MCS, and pumping failure was the major cause of periprocedural death. Rescue ablation successfully prevented VA recurrences and resulted in a comparable 1-year prognosis between ES with and without MCS.

Mechanical Circulatory Support: a Comprehensive Review With a Focus on Women.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to analyze the evidence for use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with a focus on women, namely, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, ventricular assist devices (VAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). RECENT FINDINGS: There is paucity of data examining management options for cardiogenic shock (CS) in women specifically. In published data, although only a minority of MCS recipients (33%) were women, there is a trend toward even lower use in women relative to men over time. Women presenting with CS tend to have a higher risk profile including older age, greater comorbidities, higher Society of Cardiothoracic Surgery (STS) mortality scores, more hypotension and index vasopressor requirements, and longer duration of CS. Overall, women receiving mechanical support suffer increased bleeding and vascular complications and have higher 30-day readmission rates. The incidence of cardiogenic shock (CS) has been rising at a higher rate in women compared to men. Women in CS tend to present with an overall higher risk profile including older age, greater burden of medical comorbidities, more hypotension and index vasopressor requirements, higher STS mortality scores, and more out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. After adjusting for comorbidities and traditional cardiovascular risk factors, mortality remained higher in younger women compared to men of similar age. In spite of these facts, evidence points to the underutilization of support devices in eligible female patients. Higher complication rates, such as vascular complications requiring surgery and bleeding requiring transfusion, may be deterring factors that limit the use of MCS and hinderoperator confidence and experience with devices in women. This suggests that future research should address the sex disparities in outcomes of contemporary MCS practices.

Outcomes of nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention requiring mechanical circulatory support in patients without cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been increasing. We sought to evaluate the outcome of coronary intervention using PVAD compared with IABP in noncardiogenic shock and nonacute myocardial infarction patients. METHOD: Using the National Inpatient Sampling (NIS) database from 2005 to 2014, we identified patients who underwent PCI using ICD 9 codes. Patients with cardiogenic shock, acute coronary syndrome, or acute myocardial infarction were excluded. Patient was stratified based on the MCS used, either to PVAD or IABP. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to study PCI outcome using PVAD compared with IABP. RESULTS: Out of 21,848 patients who underwent PCI requiring MCS, 17,270 (79.0%) patients received IABP and 4,578 (21%) patients received PVAD. PVAD patients were older (69 vs. 67, p < .001), were less likely to be women (23.3% vs. 33.3%, p < .001), and had higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia prior PCI, prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, anemia, chronic lung disease, liver disease, renal failure, and peripheral vascular disease compared with IABP group (p ≤ .007). Using Multivariate logistic regression, PVAD patients had lower in-hospital mortality (6.1% vs. 8.8%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.62; 95% CI 0.51, 0.77, p < .001), vascular complications (4.3% vs. 7.5%, aOR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62, 0.99, p = .046), cardiac complications (5.6% vs. 14.5%, aOR 0.29; 95% CI 0.24, 0.36, p < .001), and respiratory complications (3.8% vs. 9.8%, aOR 0.37; 95% CI 0.28, 0.48, p < .001) compared with patients who received IABP. CONCLUSION: Despite higher comorbidities, nonemergent PCI procedures using PVAD were associated with lower mortality compared with IABP.

Short-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention of unprotected left main coronary disease in cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of left main (LM) disease in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) represents a clinical challenge. Evidence on clinical outcomes according to revascularization strategies in this scenario remains scarce. The objective was to investigate the short-term outcomes according to treatment strategies for this population. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 78 consecutive patients who underwent PCI of LM in established CS at two experienced centers. Characteristics of PCI and short-term clinical outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: LM stenosis was considered the culprit lesion in 49 patients (62.8%). In the remaining cases, LM stenosis was treated after successful PCI of the culprit vessel because of persistent CS. The majority of patients presented complex coronary anatomy (43.6% had Syntax score > 32). Complete revascularization was performed in 34.6%; a 2-stents technique in the LM bifurcation was used in 12.8% and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in 73.1%. In-hospital mortality was 48.7%. At 90 days follow-up it was 50% without differences between 1 or 2 stent LM bifurcation-techniques (p = .319). Mortality was higher in patients with partial revascularization and residual Syntax score ≥ 15 (p < .05 by univariate analysis), and in those with TIMI flow<3 in the left coronary artery at the end of PCI (p < .05 by multivariate analysis). There were no significant differences in the use of IABP in relation to 90-day mortality (p = .92). CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting with cardiogenic shock and LM disease, neither 2-stents strategy in the LM nor use of IABP displayed a reduced short-term mortality. However, patients with final TIMI flow <3 presented higher short-term mortality in our series.

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation in extensive myocardial infarction with persistent ischemia: The SEMPER FI pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to prospectively investigate intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) support in large myocardial infarction complicated by persistent ischemia after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: Use of IABP is suggested to be effective by increasing diastolic aortic pressure, thereby improving coronary blood flow. This can only be expected with exhausted coronary autoregulation, typical in acute myocardial infarction complicated by persistent ischemia. In this situation, augmented diastolic pressure is expected to increase myocardial oxygenation. METHODS: One hundred patients with large STEMI complicated by persistent ischemia after primary PCI were randomized to treatment with or without IABP therapy on top of standard care. IABP support was initiated following primary PCI, immediately after inclusion. Primary end point was all-cause mortality, need for (additional) mechanical hemodynamic support, or readmission for heart failure within 6 months. RESULTS: Mean age was 63 ± 10 years, 76% were male. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure were 120 ± 25 mmHg and 73 ± 17 mmHg. Mean heart rate was 75 ± 18 mmHg. Before PCI, mean summed ST-deviation was 21 ± 8 mm with only minimal ST-resolution after PCI. One patient in the IABP group reached the primary end point versus four patients in the control group (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.16). After primary PCI, resolution of ST-deviation was significantly more pronounced in the IABP group (73 ± 17%) compared to the control group (56 ± 26%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, in patients with large STEMI and persistent ischemia after primary PCI, use of IABP showed a nonsignificant decrease in mortality, necessity for (additional) mechanical hemodynamic support or readmission for heart failure at 6 months, and resulted in more rapid ST-resolution.

Improvement in left ventricular function following higher-risk percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical revascularization is associated with improved ventricular function and clinical outcomes among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. There are less extensive data on changes in ventricular function among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Accordingly, we sought to assess the extent and predictors of change in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔLVEF) among patients undergoing hemodynamically-supported PCI. METHODS: We assessed ΔLVEF following hemodynamically-supported PCI (with Impella or intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation) among patients enrolled in the PROTECT II trial and cVAD registry. The ΔLVEF was compared among patients with paired echocardiography at baseline and at least 30 days of follow-up. Independent correlates of ΔLVEF (modeled continuously and with an absolute ΔLVEF≥5%) were assessed using multivariable models. RESULTS: Among the 689 patients with paired echocardiographic data included in the analysis, the mean LVEF improved from 24.8 ± 9.9% to 31.4 ± 13.3% after PCI, for a net increase of 6.5 ± 10.8% (p < .001). A total of 395 (57%) patients had ΔLVEF ≥ 5% following hemodynamically-supported PCI. The number of vessels treated was associated with ΔLVEF (ΔLVEF 5.5% with 1 vessel, 6.6% with 2 vessels, and 8.3% with 3 vessels, p for trend = .046). A lower baseline LVEF, absence of a history of congestive heart failure or aldosterone receptor antagonist use, and a greater number of vessels treated were independent correlates of LVEF improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction and paired echocardiographic assessments, an improvement in LVEF was observed following hemodynamically-supported PCI.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Patients With Adult Congenital Heart Disease.

Advances in surgical and medical care of children born with heart defects have led to the emergence of a unique subgroup of young adults known as adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD). Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in this subset. Management of HF is challenging in these patients owing to inherent structural variations with their associated physiological consequences. Heart transplantation is of limited utility in this group either because of donor shortage or associated comorbidities that make these patients ineligible for transplantation. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have evolved as an alternative treatment modality in supporting the failing myocardium of this population, but are often used less frequently than in those with a structurally normal heart because of the unique anatomical and physiological variations. These variations create a need to gather adequate knowledge on how best to support the hearts of ACHD patients in order to reduce mortality and morbidity. This review presents clinical experience with MCS in ACHD patients.

Prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with left main disease undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: Preventive intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for high-risk patients with stable hemodynamics is controversial, and its definition of high-risk is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effect of prophylactic IABP on the early outcome of left main disease (LMD) patients receiving off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) with stable hemodynamics. METHODS: From January 2013 to April 2020, 257 consecutive patients who underwent OPCABG through sternotomy were enrolled in this study. All LMD patients (greater than 70%) had stable hemodynamics (BP>100 mmHg without vasoconstrictor substance infusion). Early outcomes of 125 patients with prophylactic IABP (IABP group) and 132 patients without IABP (Control group) were compared in this study. RESULTS: IABP did not show favorable effect on the conversion to CPB (RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.05-7.89, P = 0.7211), perioperative MI (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.22-2.12, P = 0.5163), mortality (RR 0.65, 95%CI 0.04-10.25, P = 0.7608) or the composite end of the conversion, MI and mortality (RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.23-1.74, P = 0.3747). There was greater incidence of prolonged ventilation in IABP after adjustment (RR2.16, 95%CI 1.12-4.18, P = 0.0221). There was no IABP-related mortality or limb ischemia. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in early outcomes was observed in hemodynamically stable patients with LMD between prophylactic IABP group and control group. Prophylactic IABP may be unnecessary in patients with LMD undergoing OPCABG.

Balloon Pump Counterpulsation Part II: Perioperative Hemodynamic Support and New Directions.

Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation, introduced more than 50 years ago, remains the most commonly utilized mechanical circulatory support device for patients with cardiogenic shock and myocardial ischemia, despite lack of definitive proof regarding its outcome in these patients. Part I of this review focused on the history of counterpulsation, physiologic principles, technical considerations, and evidence for its use in cardiogenic shock; Part II will discuss periprocedural uses for IABP counterpulsation and review advances in technology, including the emergence of alternative mechanical circulatory support devices that have influenced IABP utilization.

Intraaortic Balloon Pump Counterpulsation, Part I: History, Technical Aspects, Physiologic Effects, Contraindications, Medical Applications/Outcomes.

Intraaortic balloon pump counterpulsation is the most common form of mechanical circulatory support used in patients with myocardial ischemia and cardiogenic shock. The physiologic principles of counterpulsation include diastolic augmentation of aortic pressure and systolic reduction of left ventricular afterload, resulting in hemodynamic benefits through increased coronary perfusion pressure and improved myocardial oxygen balance in patients with myocardial ischemia. Major trials have failed to conclusively demonstrate improvements in morbidity and mortality with counterpulsation therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, and/or severe coronary artery disease undergoing revascularization therapy, and the debate over its applications continues. Part I of this review focuses on the history of the development of counterpulsation, technical considerations, and complications associated with its use, its physiologic effects, and evidence for its use in myocardial ischemia and cardiogenic shock.

Proportion and risk factors of cholesterol crystal embolization after cardiovascular procedures: a retrospective national database study.

Cholesterol crystal embolization (CCE) is a rare, mainly iatrogenic condition. The proportion of CCE after cardiovascular procedures has not been fully elucidated. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of CCE diagnosed after cardiovascular procedures and to identify risk factors for CCE occurrence. Data on patients aged older than 40 years who underwent cardiovascular procedures between July 2010 and March 2017 were extracted from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Inpatients diagnosed with CCE within 1 year after procedures in the same hospital were identified. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the occurrence of CCE. There were 962 patients with CCE in 2,190,300 patients who underwent cardiovascular procedures. The overall proportion of CCE after cardiovascular procedures was 4.4 per 10,000 patients (95% confidence interval 4.1-4.7). The overall in-hospital mortality among patients with CCE was 11% (107/962). Older age, male sex, smoking, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and aortic aneurism and dissection were significantly associated with the higher occurrence of CCE. Compared with cardioangiography, several procedures were significantly associated with higher occurrence of CCE, including intra-aortic balloon pumping, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the renal artery, and transcatheter aortic valve implantation or balloon aortic valvuloplasty. CCE is rare but remains a severe complication of cardiovascular procedures. Atherosclerotic risk factors and certain cardiovascular procedures were associated with CCE.

Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Importance: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide greater hemodynamic support as compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), little is known about clinical outcomes associated with intravascular microaxial LVAD use in clinical practice. Objective: To examine outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A propensity-matched registry-based retrospective cohort study of patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, who were included in data from hospitals participating in the CathPCI and the Chest Pain-MI registries, both part of the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients receiving an intravascular microaxial LVAD were matched with those receiving IABP on demographics, clinical history, presentation, infarct location, coronary anatomy, and clinical laboratory data, with final follow-up through December 31, 2017. Exposures: Hemodynamic support, categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD use only, IABP only, other (such as use of a percutaneous extracorporeal ventricular assist system, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a combination of MCS device use), or medical therapy only. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital major bleeding. Results: Among 28 304 patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (12.6) years, 67.0% were men, 81.3% had an ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 43.3% had cardiac arrest. Over the study period among patients with AMI, an intravascular microaxial LVAD was used in 6.2% of patients, and IABP was used in 29.9%. Among 1680 propensity-matched pairs, there was a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death associated with use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage points {95% CI, 7.6-14.2}; P < .001) and also higher risk of in-hospital major bleeding (intravascular microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage points [95% CI, 12.5-18.2]; P < .001). These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients received a device before or after initiation of PCI. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock from 2015 to 2017, use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD compared with IABP was associated with higher adjusted risk of in-hospital death and major bleeding complications, although study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Further research may be needed to understand optimal device choice for these patients.

Clinical Factors Associated with In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Who Required Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping.

Recent guidelines do not recommend the routine use of intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) for patients with cardiogenic shock. However, IABP support is still selected for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in clinical practice because an Impella device did not show superiority over IABP and the mortality of AMI with cardiogenic shock is still high. This study aimed to find factors associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI who required IABP support. Overall, 104 patients with AMI who required IABP support were included as the study population. Of 104 patients, in-hospital death was observed in 19 (18.3%). Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the determinants of in-hospital death. Shock, resuscitation, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), pre-systolic blood pressure of IABP insertion, multi-vessel disease, fluoroscopy time, initial lactic acid dehydrogenase levels, and timing of IABP support were included as independent variables. Shock (OR 25.27, 95% CI 3.26-196.11, P = 0.002) was significantly associated with in-hospital death after controlling other covariates, whereas eGFR (every 10 mL/minute/1.73 m2 increase: OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.82, P < 0.001) and pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (pre-PCI) insertion of IABP (versus on-PCI insertion of IABP: OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.008-0.485, P = 0.008) were inversely associated with in-hospital death. In conclusion, shock was significantly associated with in-hospital death, whereas eGFR and pre-PCI insertion of IABP were inversely associated with in-hospital death in patients with AMI who received IABP support. Pre-PCI insertion of an IABP catheter might be associated with better survival in AMI patients who potentially require IABP support.