Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the comparative outcomes following percutaneous microaxial ventricular assist devices (pVAD) versus intra-aortic balloon pump for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock is limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 704 and 2140 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years treated with pVAD and intra-aortic balloon pump, respectively, for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock from 2016 to 2020. Patients treated using pVAD compared with those treated using intra-aortic balloon pump were more likely to be concurrently treated with mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and blood transfusions. We computed propensity scores for undergoing pVAD using patient- and hospital-level factors and performed a matching weight analysis. The use of pVAD was associated with higher 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59-2.33]) but not associated with in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.81-1.24]), stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.47]), sepsis (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.64-1.28]), and length of hospital stay (adjusted mean difference, +0.4 days [95% CI, -1.4 to +2.3]). A quasi-experimental instrumental variable analysis using the cross-sectional institutional practice preferences showed similar patterns, though not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.28-6.89). CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation using the national sample of Medicare beneficiaries showed that the use of pVAD compared with intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with higher mortality in patients with nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock. Providers should be cautious about the use of pVAD for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, while adequately powered high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine the clinical effects of pVAD.

US trends of in-hospital morbidity and mortality for acute myocardial infarctions complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: There is limited real-world data highlighting recent temporal in-hospital morbidity and mortality trends for cases of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The role of mechanical circulatory support within this patient population remains unclear. METHODS: The US National Inpatient Sample database was sampled from 2011 to 2018 identifying 206,396 hospitalizations with a primary admission diagnosis of ST- or Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The primary outcomes included trends of all-cause in-hospital mortality, mechanical circulatory support use, and sex-specific trends for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) over the study period. RESULTS: The annual number of AMI-CS hospitalizations increased from 22,851 in 2011 to 30,015 in 2018 and in-hospital mortality trends remained similar (42.9 % to 43.7 %, ptrend < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving any temporary MCS device decreased (46.4 % to 44.4 %). The use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) decreased (44.9 % to 32.9 %) and the use of any other non-IABP MCS device increased (2.5 % to 15.6 %), ptrend<0.001. Sex-specific mortality indicate female in-hospital mortality remained similar (50.3 % to 51 %, ptrend<0.001), but higher than male in-hospital mortality, which increased non-significantly (38.8 % to 40.2 %, ptrend = 0.372). CONCLUSIONS: From 2011 to 2018, hospitalizations for AMI-CS patients have increased in number. However, there has been no recent appreciable change in AMI-CS mortality despite a changing treatment landscape with decreasing use of IABPs and increasing use of non-IABP MCS devices. Further research is necessary to examine the appropriate use of MCS devices within this population.

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.

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.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly being used as destination therapy in patients with Stage D heart failure. It has been reported that a majority of patients who receive a durable LVAD (dLVAD) present in cardiogenic shock due to decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS). As it stands, there is no consensus on the optimal management strategy for patients presenting with ADHF. Bridging with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) continues to be a therapeutic option in patients with hemodynamic instability due to cardiogenic shock. The majority of data regarding the use of IABP in cardiogenic shock come from studies in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and demonstrates that there is no benefit of routine IABP use in this patient population. However, the role of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in ADHF-CS has yet to be determined. The hemodynamic changes seen in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock are known to be different and more acutely impaired than those presenting with ADHF-CS as evidenced by differences in pressure/volume loops. Thus, data should not be extrapolated across these 2 very different disease processes. The aim of this review is to describe results from contemporary studies examining the use of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in patients with ADHF-CS. Retrospective evidence from large registries suggests that the use of IABP as a bridge to dLVAD is feasible and safe when compared with other platforms of temporary mechanical circulatory support. However, there is currently a paucity of high-quality evidence examining this increasingly important clinical question.

Improvements in Functional Status Among Survivors of Orthotopic Heart Transplantation Following High-risk Bridging Modalities.

BACKGROUND: The 2018 heart allocation change has resulted in greater frequency of high-risk bridging to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). Although survival has been studied in these patients, functional status outcomes are less established. This study evaluated changes in functional status of OHT survivors based on bridging strategy. METHODS: Adults (≥18 y) undergoing OHT between January 2015 and March 2020 were stratified by bridging modality: no bridging, inotropes only, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), temporary ventricular assist device (VAD), durable VAD, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Using paired analysis, the Karnofsky performance scale (0-100) was utilized to compare differences in function at listing, transplant, and follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 13 142 patients underwent OHT. At the time of both listing and transplant, patients requiring IABP, temporary VAD, and ECMO displayed the lowest functional status (each median 20) compared with other groups (P < 0.001). Among survivors, the median performance status at follow-up was ≥80 for all groups, indicating total functional independence with no assistance required. Substantial improvement in Karnofsky score occurred from transplant to follow-up in survivors bridged with IABP (40), temporary VADs (60), and ECMO (50) (each P < 0.001). Among survivors with at least 90-day follow-up, the median Karnofsky score was 90 regardless of bridging modality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher mortality risk, critically ill patients who survive OHT after bridging with high-risk modalities experience acceptable functional status outcomes. These findings are important to place in the context of the impact that the 2018 allocation change has had on the landscape of OHT in the United States.

Clinical Outcomes Associated With Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support Utilization in Heart Failure Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock occurring in the setting of advanced heart failure (HF-CS) is increasingly common. However, recent studies have focused almost exclusively on acute myocardial infarction-related CS. We sought to define clinical, hemodynamic, metabolic, and treatment parameters associated with clinical outcomes among patients with HF-CS, using data from the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry. METHODS: Patients with HF-CS were identified from the multicenter Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry and divided into 3 outcome categories assessed at hospital discharge: mortality, heart replacement therapy (HRT: durable ventricular assist device or orthotopic heart transplant), or native heart survival. Clinical characteristics, hemodynamic, laboratory parameters, drug therapies, acute mechanical circulatory support device (AMCS) utilization, and Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention stages were compared across the 3 outcome cohorts. RESULTS: Of the 712 patients with HF-CS identified, 180 (25.3%) died during their index admission, 277 (38.9%) underwent HRT (durable ventricular assist device or orthotopic heart transplant), and 255 (35.8%) experienced native heart survival without HRT. Patients who died had the highest right atrial pressure and heart rate and the lowest mean arterial pressure of the 3 outcome groups (P<0.01 for all). Biventricular and isolated left ventricular congestion were common among patients who died or underwent HRT, respectively. Lactate, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, and aspartate aminotransferase were highest in patients with HF-CS experiencing in-hospital death. Intraaortic balloon pump was the most commonly used AMCS device in the overall cohort and among patients receiving HRT. Patients receiving >1 AMCS device had the highest in-hospital mortality rate irrespective of the number of vasoactive drugs used. Mortality increased with deteriorating Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention stages (stage B: 0%, stage C: 10.7%, stage D: 29.4%, stage E: 54.5%, 1-way ANOVA=<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF-CS experiencing in-hospital mortality had a high prevalence of biventricular congestion and markers of end-organ hypoperfusion. Substantial heterogeneity exists with use of AMCS in HF-CS with intraaortic balloon pump being the most common device used and high rates of in-hospital mortality after exposure to >1 AMCS device.

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.

Acceptable Post-Heart Transplant Outcomes Support Temporary MCS Prioritization in the New OPTN|UNOS Heart Allocation Policy.

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are generally used short term to maintain adequate organ perfusion in patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Unacceptably high waitlist mortality in this cohort motivated changes to heart allocation policy, which recognized the severity of illness by prioritization for temporary MCS and broader sharing in the new U.S. donor heart allocation policy. We evaluated the post-heart transplant outcomes for patients bridged with temporary MCS, a control population not bridged with MCS, and a cohort bridged with durable MCS. METHODS: The heart transplant research database was queried to identify patients bridged with temporary MCS and bridged with durable MCS who went directly to heart transplant in our center. Temporary MCS included Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Post-transplant endpoints were assessed at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2017, a total of 23 patients were bridged to heart transplant with temporary MCS and 548 were transplanted without MCS bridge. Patients bridged with temporary MCS had younger age, lower body mass index, and higher frequencies of prior blood transfusion and Status 1 (1A/1B) listing at transplant compared to patients not bridged with MCS (all P < .001). Despite the severity of illness in patients bridged with temporary MCS, post-transplant outcomes were indistinguishable from those in patients transplanted without MCS bridge, with no difference in 30-day, 6-month, or 1-year survival or 1-year freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy, nonfatal major adverse cardiac events, any-treated rejection, acute cellular rejection, or antibody-mediated rejection (P = .23-.97). Similarly, compared to 157 patients bridged with durable MCS, no differences in post-transplant outcomes were identified for the temporary MCS cohort (P = .15-.94). CONCLUSION: Temporary MCS as a bridge to transplant achieves similar post-transplant outcomes at 1 year compared to no MCS and durable MCS. These encouraging findings support recent changes in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network | United Network Organ Sharing (OPTN|UNOS) adult heart allocation policy.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist support is associated with less pulmonary congestion and lower rate of pneumonia in patients with cardiogenic shock.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of acute left ventricular unloading by percutaneous left ventricular assist device on pulmonary congestion and pneumonia in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analysed patients with CS who received the Impella percutaneous left ventricular assist device (n=50) compared with those who received intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support (n=50). Pulmonary congestion was longitudinally assessed while on support by calculating characteristic findings on the chest X-ray using the Halperin score. The rate of pneumonia and early mortality were assessed as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: The groups (Impella vs IABP) did not differ in terms of age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology, Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score or serum lactate levels. Pulmonary congestion decreased in patient treated with Impella at each time point postimplantation. No change in congestion status was observed in patients supported with IABP. Multivariate analysis indicated Impella support as an independent predictor for pulmonary decongestion (OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.15 to 14.35, p=0.030). The rate of early pneumonia was lower in the Impella group compared with the IABP group (54% vs 74%, p=0.037). Failure of pulmonary decongestion during mechanical circulatory support independently predicted early pneumonia (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.70, p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Pulmonary decongestion may facilitate treatment of pneumonia in patients with CS. Left ventricular unloading by Impella device might support pulmonary decongestion, although a larger prospective trial in this patient population is required.

Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Should we unload the ventricle before percutaneous coronary intervention?

Despite early reperfusion and coordinated systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the number one cause of morbidity and in-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS is a complex clinical syndrome that begins with hemodynamic instability and can progress to multi-organ failure and profound hemo-metabolic compromise. To improve outcomes, a clear understanding of the treatment objectives in CS and developing time-sensitive management strategies aimed at stabilizing hemodynamics and restoring myocardial perfusion are critical. Left ventricular (LV) load has been identified as an independent predictor of heart failure and mortality following AMI. Decades of preclinical and clinical research have identified several effective LV unloading strategies. Recent initiatives from single and multi-center registries and more recently the Door to Unload (DTU)-STEMI pilot study have provided valuable insight to developing a standardized treatment approach to AMI, based on early invasive hemodynamics and tailored circulatory support to unload the LV. To follow is a review of the pathophysiology and prevalence of shock, limitations of current therapies, and the pre-clinical and translational basis for incorporating LV unloading into contemporary AMI and shock care.

Mechanical circulatory support devices in advanced heart failure: 2020 and beyond.

Substantial progress in the field of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has expanded the treatment options for patients with advanced-stage heart failure (HF). Currently available MCS devices can be implanted percutaneously or surgically. They can also be configured to support the left, right, or both ventricles, offering varying levels of circulatory support. Short-term temporary MCS devices are primarily used in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiogenic shock, and post-cardiac arrest, while durable left ventricular assist systems (LVAS) are increasingly utilized either as a bridge-to-transplant, bridge to decision, or as a destination therapy. The evolution from older pulsatile devices to continuous-flow LVAS and the incorporation of smaller pumps, with no valves, fewer moving parts, and improved hemocompatibility has translated into improved clinical outcomes, greater durability, fewer adverse events, and reduced overall cost of care. However, despite marked advances in device design and clinical management, determining MCS candidacy is often difficult and requires the integration of clinical, biomarker, imaging, exercise, and hemodynamic data. This review aims to provide a summary of the current use of short-term and durable MCS devices in the treatment of advanced-stage HF, highlighting several aspects of LVAS support and the challenges that remain.

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.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation - Does it work?

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been in routine use for various cardiovascular indications for 5 decades. However, its regular use has been increasingly questioned. The aim of IABP counterpulsation is to enhance coronary blood flow and to reduce afterload of the left ventricle. In-vivo studies, however, provided insight into how physiological responses might counteract the desired effects of the device. Large randomized trials did not show benefit of IABP in the main indications such as infarct-related cardiogenic shock, high-risk myocardial infarction without shock and elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. As these results are reflected differently in international guidelines and the interpretation of the evidence is heterogeneous, the frequency of IABP use differs considerably by region. Current research efforts predominantly focus on other active mechanical circulatory support devices making evidence-based approaches for possible final IABP niches more difficult.

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.

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.

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.

Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock.

Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and clinicians have increasingly used short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) over the last 15 years to manage outcomes. In general, the provision of greater hemodynamic support comes with device platforms that are more complex and potentially associated with more adverse events. In this review, we compare and contrast the available percutaneous and surgically placed device types used in cardiogenic shock and discuss the associated clinical and hemodynamic data to support device use.

Acute Kidney Injury in Cardiogenic Shock.

This column is supplied by Amol Patel, DO, and Peter Nguyen, MD. Dr. Patel is an internal medicine resident at Houston Methodist Hospital, where he is in his final year as chief resident. He received his bachelor's degree in biomedical engineering at Texas A&M University and his medical degree at UNT Health Science center in Forth Worth, Texas. Dr. Nguyen is a nephrologist with Houston Kidney Consultants and practices at Houston Methodist Hospital, where he is currently the secretary of the medical staff. He obtained his medical degree from Texas Tech School of Medicine and completed his residency and nephrology fellowship at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.