Characteristics, Treatment Strategies and Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Contemporary Dutch Cohort.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Our study aimed to gain insights into patient characteristics, outcomes and treatment strategies in CS patients. Patients with CS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2017 and 2021 were identified in a nationwide registry. Data on medical history, laboratory values, angiographic features and outcomes were retrospectively assessed. A total of 2328 patients with a mean age of 66 years and of whom 73% were male, were included. Mortality at 30 days was 39% for the entire cohort. Non-survivors presented with a lower mean blood pressure and increased heart rate, blood lactate and blood glucose levels (p-value for all <0.001). Also, an increased prevalence of diabetes, multivessel coronary artery disease and a prior coronary event were found. Of all patients, 24% received mechanical circulatory support, of which the majority was via intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs). Furthermore, 79% of patients were treated with at least one vasoactive agent, and multivessel PCI was performed in 28%. In conclusion, a large set of hemodynamic, biochemical and patient-related characteristics was identified to be associated with mortality. Interestingly, multivessel PCI and IABPs were frequently applied despite a lack of evidence.

Prophylactic Impella CP versus VA-ECMO in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated PCI.

Objectives: To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Background: To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. Methods: In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. Results: A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.22). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.59). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; p = 0.22) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference (p = 0.48). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.09). Conclusions: In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome.

Complex High-Risk Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Prophylactic Use of the Impella CP Ventricular Assist Device.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with complex coronary artery disease, concomitant cardiac disease, and multiple comorbidities are addressed as complex higher-risk indicated patients (CHIPs). Selecting a revascularization strategy in this population remains challenging. If coronary artery bypass grafting is deemed high risk or patients are considered inoperable, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the support of the Impella CP ventricular assist device (Abiomed) may be an attractive alternative. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter study, we included consecutive patients undergoing Impella CP-facilitated complex high-risk PCI. All patients were discussed by the heart team and were declined for surgery. Additionally, periprocedural mechanical circulatory support was deemed necessary. We collected demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and mortality rates up to 30 days were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients (median age, 73 ± 9.7 years; 74.1% men) were included in our study. The median SYNTAX score was 32 (range, 8-57) and EuroSCORE was 7.25% (range, 1.33-49.66; ± 12.76%). Periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed in 1 patient (3.7%). In-hospital combined with 30-day mortality was 7.4% (2/27). No repeat revascularization was necessary. MACE was observed in 10 patients (37.0%). Six patients (22.2%) had a major bleeding complication, of which 2 were related to Impella access site. Median Impella run time was 1.22 hours and there was no significant decrease in kidney function. Median admission time after PCI was 3 days (range, 1-23; ± 4.76). CONCLUSIONS: The Impella CP system showed good feasibility and provided adequate hemodynamic support during high-risk PCI in this CHIP population.

Long-term 5-year outcome of the randomized IMPRESS in severe shock trial: percutaneous mechanical circulatory support vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS: To assess differences in long-term outcome and functional status of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated by percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Long-term follow-up of the multicentre, randomized IMPRESS in Severe Shock trial (NTR3450) was performed 5-year after initial randomization. Between 2012 and 2015, a total of 48 patients with severe CS from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation undergoing immediate revascularization were randomized to pMCS by Impella CP (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24). For the 5-year assessment, all-cause mortality, functional status, and occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) were assessed. MACCE consisted of death, myocardial re-infarction, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, and stroke. Five-year mortality was 50% (n = 12/24) in pMCS patients and 63% (n = 15/24) in IABP patients (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.59, P = 0.65). MACCE occurred in 12/24 (50%) of the pMCS patients vs. 19/24 (79%) of the IABP patients (P = 0.07). All survivors except for one were in New York Heart Association Class I/II [pMCS n = 10 (91%) and IABP n = 7 (100%), P = 1.00] and none of the patients had residual angina. There were no differences in left ventricular ejection fraction between the groups (pMCS 52 ± 11% vs. IABP 48 ± 10%, P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: In this explorative randomized trial of patients with severe CS after AMI, there was no difference in long-term 5-year mortality between pMCS and IABP-treated patients, supporting previously published short-term data and in accordance with other long-term CS trials.

Outcome and Predictors for Mortality in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: A Dutch Nationwide Registry-Based Study of 75,407 Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated by PCI.

It is important to gain more insight into the cardiogenic shock (CS) population, as currently, little is known on how to improve outcomes. Therefore, we assessed clinical outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without CS at admission. Furthermore, the incidence of CS and predictors for mortality in CS patients were evaluated. The Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR) is a nationwide registry on all cardiac interventions. We used NHR data of ACS patients treated with PCI between 2015 and 2019. Among 75,407 ACS patients treated with PCI, 3028 patients (4.1%) were identified with CS, respectively 4.3%, 3.9%, 3.5%, and 4.3% per year. Factors associated with mortality in CS were age (HR 1.02, 95%CI 1.02-1.03), eGFR (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.98-0.99), diabetes mellitus (DM) (HR 1.25, 95%CI 1.08-1.45), multivessel disease (HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.06-1.39), prior myocardial infarction (MI) (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.06-1.45), and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) (HR 1.71, 95%CI 1.50-1.94). In conclusion, in this Dutch nationwide registry-based study of ACS patients treated by PCI, the incidence of CS was 4.1% over the 4-year study period. Predictors for mortality in CS were higher age, renal insufficiency, presence of DM, multivessel disease, prior MI, and OHCA.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Medical Therapy for Coronary Lesions With Positive Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) but Preserved Pressure-Bounded Coronary Flow Reserve (CFR): A Substudy of the Randomized Compare-Acute Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for fractional flow reserve (FFR) positive coronary lesions improves clinical outcomes and is recommended by international guidelines. It has been hypothesized that lesions with a positive FFR but a preserved coronary flow reserve (CFR) are less likely to be flow limiting and might best be treated medically. We investigated the association of CFR in FFR-positive lesions with clinical outcomes when treated medically, as well as the treatment effect of PCI vs medical therapy in FFR-positive lesions and a preserved CFR. METHODS: We performed a substudy of the randomized, multicenter Compare-Acute trial, in which stabilized ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with non-culprit lesions were randomized to either FFR-guided PCI or medical therapy. Based on baseline and hyperemic pressure gradients, we computed physiologic limits of CFR, the so-called pressure-bounded CFR (pb-CFR), and classified lesions as low (<2) or preserved (≥2). The primary endpoint was 12-month major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate, defined as a composite of death from any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, or cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: A total of 980 lesions from 885 patients were included in this substudy. In lesions with FFR ≤0.80, a total of 249 patients had a pb-CFR <2 and 29 patients had a preserved CFR (pb-CFR ≥2). The rate of MACCE at 1 year was not significantly different between patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR <2 vs patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR ≥2 (25% vs 17%, respectively; P=.39). Because of randomization, baseline characteristics were well balanced between patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR ≥2 treated by either by PCI or medical therapy. Importantly, in patients with FFR ≤0.80 and pb-CFR ≥2, MACCE occurred more frequently in patients treated medically vs patients treated by PCI (44% vs 0%, respectively; P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Preserved or low pb-CFR did not alter clinical outcomes in patients with a positive FFR. Patients with FFR-positive coronary lesions but a preserved CFR had more clinical events when treated medically vs those treated with PCI.

VA-ECMO With IABP is Associated With Better Outcome Than VA-ECMO Alone in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether combining venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) improves outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) over VA-ECMO alone. BACKGROUND: VA-ECMO is an upcoming technique in the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS); however, it increases afterload. IABP + VA-ECMO has been suggested to reduce afterload and increase survival. METHODS: A multicenter in-hospital registry was maintained on all patients undergoing VA-ECMO or VA-ECMO + IABP treatment for CS in STEMI. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, a total of 18 patients with STEMI underwent VA-ECMO ± IABP treatment for CS. The majority (n = 14; 78%) were male and median age was 59 years (interquartile range, 47-75 years). VA-ECMO + IABP was performed in 7 patients (39%) and VA-ECMO alone was performed in 11 patients (61%). The VA-ECMO + IABP group had more complex coronary anatomy and a higher number of patients with left main (LM) disease, LM + 3-vessel disease, or 3-vessel disease (VA-ECMO + IABP 86% vs VA-ECMO alone 18%; P=.03). The Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (SAVE) score did not differ between the groups (VA-ECMO alone -5.9 ± 2.4 vs VA-ECMO + IABP -6.1 ± 2.6; P=.88). The SYNTAX score was higher in the VA-ECMO + IABP group (32 ± 13 vs 22 ± 14 in the VA-ECMO alone group). In the total group, a SAVE score of -6 had a predicted survival of 25%-35%. Survival in the VA-ECMO + IABP group was 100% (7/7) and survival in the VA-ECMO group was 55% (6/11); P=.04. Good neurological outcome was achieved in more patients in the VA-ECMO + IABP group (VA-ECMO alone 45% vs VA-ECMO + IABP 100%; P=.04). CONCLUSION: In STEMI complicated by CS, VA-ECMO + IABP leads to a lower observed mortality and higher observed good neurological outcome.

Catamenial chest pain and spontaneous coronary artery dissection: A case report.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare cause of myocardial infarction, presenting mostly in healthy, young women. The pathogenesis is still poorly understood. A 45-year-old woman presented with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction, caused by SCAD of the mid left anterior descending coronary artery. In the six years prior to this event, she frequently experienced chest pain coinciding with her menstruation.

Pre-PCI versus immediate post-PCI Impella initiation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: In selected patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by Cardiogenic shock (CS), mechanical circulatory support with Impella may be beneficial, although conclusive evidence is still lacking. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that Impella initiation prior to primary PCI might improve survival. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect pre-PCI versus immediate post-PCI Impella initiation on short term mortality. METHODS: A prospective, single center, observational study, was performed including all patients with STEMI complicated by CS, treated with primary PCI and Impella. Thirty day mortality was compared between patients with Impella initiation pre-PCI and immediately post-PCI. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were included. In the pre-PCI group (n = 21), admission heart rate was lower (84 versus 94 bpm, p = 0.04) and no IABP was implanted before Impella initiation, versus 17.9% in post-PCI group (n = 67), p = 0.04. Total 30-day all-cause mortality was 58%, and was lower in pre-PCI group, 47.6% versus 61.2% in the post-PCI group, however not statistically significant (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.3, p = 0.21). Thirty-day cardiac mortality was significantly lower in the pre-PCI group, 19% versus 44.7% in the post-PCI group (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.09-0.96, p = 0.042). CONCLUSION: Pre-PCI Impella initiation in AMICS patients was not associated with a statistically significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality, compared to post-PCI Impella initiation.

Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience.

AIMS: Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients remains high. Short-term mechanical circulatory support with Impella can be used to support the circulation in these patients, but data from randomised controlled studies and 'real-world' data are sparse. The aim is to describe real-life data on outcomes and complications of our 12 years of clinical experience with Impella in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction and to identify predictors of 6-month mortality. METHODS: We describe a single-centre registry from October 2004 to December 2016 including all patients treated with Impella for cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. We report outcomes and complications and identify predictors of 6-month mortality. RESULTS: Our overall clinical experience consists of 250 patients treated with Impella 2.5, Impella CP or Impella 5.0. A total of 172 patients received Impella therapy for cardiogenic shock, of which 112 patients had cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The mean age was 60.1±10.6 years, mean arterial pressure was 67 (56-77) mmHg, lactate was 6.2 (3.6-9.7) mmol/L, 87.5% were mechanically ventilated and 59.6% had a cardiac arrest before Impella placement. Overall 30-day mortality was 56.2% and 6-month mortality was 60.7%. Complications consisted of device-related vascular complications (17.0%), non-device-related bleeding (12.5%), haemolysis (7.1%) and stroke (3.6%). In a multivariate analysis, pH before Impella placement is a predictor of 6-month mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our registry shows that Impella treatment in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction is feasible, although mortality rates remain high and complications occur.

A Randomized Comparison of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Any In-Stent Restenosis: The DARE Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the relative performance of a drug-eluting balloon (DEB) and a drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with any (bare-metal or drug-eluting stent) in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: The treatment of ISR remains challenging in contemporary clinical practice. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial, patients with any ISR were randomly allocated in a 1:1 fashion to treatment with a DEB (SeQuent Please paclitaxel-eluting balloon, B. Braun Melsungen, Melsungen, Germany), or a DES (XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California). The primary endpoint was noninferiority in terms of in-segment minimal lumen diameter (MLD) at 6-month angiographic follow-up. Secondary endpoints included angiographic parameters at 6 months and clinical follow-up up to 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients, of whom 56% had DES-ISR, were randomized at 8 sites to treatment with DEB (n = 141) or DES (n = 137). As compared with DEB, DES was associated with larger MLD and lower % stenosis immediately post-procedure (1.84 ± 0.46 vs. 1.72 ± 0.35; p = 0.018; and 26 ± 10% vs. 30 ± 10%; p = 0.03). Angiographic follow up was completed at 196 ± 53 days in 79% of patients. With respect to the primary endpoint of in-segment MLD at 6 months, DEB was noninferior to DES (DEB 1.71 ± 0.51 mm vs. DES 1.74 ± 0.61 mm; p for noninferiority <0.0001). Target vessel revascularization at 12-month follow-up was similar in both groups (DES 7.1% vs. DEB 8.8%; p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, treatment with DEB was noninferior compared with DES in terms of 6-month MLD. There were no differences in clinical endpoints, including target vessel revascularization up to 12 months. Therefore, use of a DEB is an attractive treatment option for in-stent restenosis, withholding the need for additional stent implantation.

Efficacy of the RADPAD Protection Drape in Reducing Operators' Radiation Exposure in the Catheterization Laboratory: A Sham-Controlled Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists are increasingly exposed to radiation-induced diseases like cataract and the stochastic risk of left-sided brain tumors. The RADPAD is a sterile, disposable, lead-free shield placed on the patient with the aim to minimize operator-received scatter radiation. The objective of the trial was to examine the RADPAD's efficacy in a real-world situation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the current, double-blind, sham-controlled, all-comer trial, patients undergoing diagnostic catheterization or percutaneous coronary interventions were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to a radiation absorbing shield (RADPAD), standard treatment (NOPAD), or a sham shield (SHAMPAD). The sham shield allowed testing for shield-induced radiation behavior. The primary outcome was the difference in relative exposure of the primary operator between the RADPAD and NOPAD arms and was defined as the ratio between operator's exposure (E in µSv) and patient exposure (dose area product in mGy·cm2), measured per procedure. A total of 766 consecutive coronary procedures were randomized to the use of RADPAD (N=255), NOPAD (N=255), or SHAMPAD (N=256). The use of RADPAD was associated with a 20% reduction in relative operator exposure compared with that of NOPAD (P=0.01) and a 44% relative exposure reduction compared with the use of a SHAMPAD (P<0.001). Use of the SHAMPAD was associated with a 43% higher relative radiation exposure than procedures with NOPAD (P=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical daily practice, the standard use of the RADPAD radiation shield reduced operator radiation exposure compared with procedures with NOPAD or SHAMPAD. This study supports the routine use of RADPAD in the catheterization laboratory. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03139968.

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in treatment, mortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices acutely improve hemodynamic conditions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a new percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) device (Impella CP, Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts) decreases 30-day mortality when compared with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with severe shock complicating AMI. METHODS: In a randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, 48 patients with severe CS complicating AMI were assigned to pMCS (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24). Severe CS was defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or the need for inotropic or vasoactive medication and the requirement for mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: At 30 days, mortality in patients treated with either IABP or pMCS was similar (50% and 46%, respectively; hazard ratio with pMCS: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 2.18; p = 0.92). At 6 months, mortality rates for both pMCS and IABP were 50% (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 2.32; p = 0.923). CONCLUSIONS: In this explorative randomized controlled trial involving mechanically ventilated patients with CS after AMI, routine treatment with pMCS was not associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with IABP. (IMPRESS in Severe Shock; NTR3450).

The IMPACT Study (Influence of Sensor-Equipped Microcatheters on Coronary Hemodynamics and the Accuracy of Physiological Indices of Functional Stenosis Severity).

BACKGROUND: The Navvus pressure sensor-equipped microcatheter allows to measure functional stenosis severity over a work-horse guidewire and is used as a more feasible alternative to regular sensor-equipped wires. However, Navvus is larger in diameter than contemporary sensor-equipped guidewires and may, thereby, influence functional measurements. The present study evaluates the hemodynamic influence of the Navvus microcatheter. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with intermediate coronary stenosis, coronary pressure and flow velocity were measured using a dual sensor-equipped guidewire before and after introduction of Navvus. Patients were randomized to microcatheter-first or guidewire-first measurement. The primary end point was the difference in hyperemic stenosis resistance index between measurements before and after introduction of Navvus. Measurements were completed in 28 patients (28 stenoses). Mean hyperemic stenosis resistance was 0.37±0.19 Hg/cm/s for wire-only assessment and 0.48±0.26 Hg/cm/s after Navvus introduction (P<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis documented a mean bias of +0.11 Hg/cm/s (limits of agreement: -0.13 to 0.36), proportional to mean hyperemic stenosis resistance (Spearman ρ =0.61; P=0.001). Passing-Bablok analysis revealed absence of a constant difference but significant proportional difference between the methods. Mean fractional flow reserve was 0.86±0.06 for wire-only assessment and 0.82±0.07 after Navvus introduction (P<0.001). Bland-Altman analysis documented a mean bias of -0.033 (limits of agreement: -0.09 to 0.03), proportional to mean fractional flow reserve (Spearman ρ =0.40; P=0.036). Passing-Bablok analysis revealed significant constant and proportional differences between methods. Similar results were documented for resting indices of stenosis severity. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of the Navvus microcatheter leads to clinically relevant stenosis severity overestimation in intermediate stenosis.

Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed updated to December 2015. Thirteen studies were included of which nine included cardiac arrest patients (n = 3098) and four included patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (n = 235). Data were pooled by a Mantel-Haenzel random effects model and heterogeneity was examined by the I 2 statistic. RESULTS: In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an absolute increase of 30 days survival of 13 % compared with patients in which ECLS was not used [95 % CI 6-20 %; p < 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) 7.7] and a higher rate of favourable neurological outcome at 30 days (absolute risk difference 14 %; 95 % CI 7-20 %; p < 0.0001; NNT 7.1). Propensity matched analysis, including 5 studies and 438 patients (219 in both groups), showed similar results. In cardiogenic shock, ECLS showed a 33 % higher 30-day survival compared with IABP (95 % CI, 14-52 %; p < 0.001; NNT 13) but no difference when compared with TandemHeart/Impella (-3 %; 95 % CI -21 to 14 %; p = 0.70; NNH 33). CONCLUSIONS: In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome. In the setting of cardiogenic shock there was an increased survival with ECLS compared with IABP.

Assessment of Cardiac Device Position on Supine Chest Radiograph in the ICU: Introduction and Applicability of the Aortic Valve Location Ratio.

OBJECTIVES: The use of intracardiac assist devices is expanding, and correct position of these devices is required for optimal functioning. The aortic valve is an important landmark for positioning of those devices. It would be of great value if the device position could be easily monitored on plain supine chest radiograph in the ICU. We introduce a ratio-based tool for determination of the aortic valve location on plain supine chest radiograph images, which can be used to evaluate intracardiac device position. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Large academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients admitted to the ICU and supported by an intracardiac assist device. INTERVENTIONS: We developed a ratio to determine the aortic valve location on supine chest radiograph images. This ratio is used to assess the position of a cardiac assist device and is compared with echocardiographic findings. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Supine anterior-posterior chest radiographs of patients with an aortic valve prosthesis (n = 473) were analyzed to determine the location of the aortic valve. We calculated several ratios with the potential to determine the position of the aortic valve. The aortic valve location ratio, defined as the distance between the carina and the aortic valve, divided by the thoracic width, was found to be the best performing ratio. The aortic valve location ratio determines the location of the aortic valve caudal to the carina, at a distance of 0.25 ± 0.05 times the thoracic width for male patients and 0.28 ± 0.05 times the thoracic width for female patients. The aortic valve location ratio was validated using CT images of patients with angina pectoris without known valvular disease (n = 95). There was a good correlation between cardiac device position (Impella) assessed with the aortic valve location ratio and with echocardiography (n = 53). CONCLUSIONS: The aortic valve location ratio enables accurate and reproducible localization of the aortic valve on supine chest radiograph. This tool is easily applicable and can be used for assessment of cardiac device position in patients on the ICU.

The Role of Percutaneous Haemodynamic Support in High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Cardiogenic Shock.

The experience and usage of percutaneous cardiac assist devices in cardiogenic shock as well as high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention have increased over the years. Nonetheless, there is still little evidence of clinical benefit of these devices other than immediate haemodynamic improvement. Despite the fact that these devices are used to treat a rather complex patient population, clinical testing remains important in order to evaluate their true impact on clinical outcome before being adopted into clinical practice. Therefore, this review shows an overview of the current experience and evidence of the available percutaneous cardiac assist devices.