The Effects of Exercise on Cardiogenic Shock with an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: A Case Report. / Efeitos do Exercício em Choque Cardiogênico e Balão Intra-Aórtico: Um Relato de Caso.

This case report describes the exercise program on a hospitalized 54-year-old male patient with cardiogenic shock waiting for a heart transplant assisted by an intra-aortic balloon pump, a temporary mechanical circulatory support device. The temporary mechanical circulatory support device, an intra-aortic balloon pump, was placed in the left subclavian artery, enabling the exercise protocol. Measurements and values from Swan-Ganz catheter, blood sample, brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), as well as the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) were obtained before and after an exercise protocol. The exercise training protocol involved the use of an unloaded bed cycle ergometer once a day, for a maximum of 30 minutes, to the tolerance limit. No adverse events or events related to the dislocation of the intra-aortic balloon pump were observed during the exercise protocol. The exercise program resulted in higher SvO2 levels, with an increased 6MWT with lower Borg dyspnea scores (312 meters vs. 488 meters and five points vs. three points, respectively). After completing the ten-day exercise protocol, the patient underwent a non-complicated heart transplant surgery and a full recovery in the ICU. This study showed that exercise is a feasible option for patients with cardiogenic shock who are using an intra-aortic balloon pump and that it is well-tolerated with no reported adverse events.

O presente relato de caso descreve o programa de exercícios aplicado a um paciente do sexo masculino, de 54 anos, internado com choque cardiogênico, aguardando transplante cardíaco e assistido por balão intra-aórtico, um dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário. O dispositivo de suporte circulatório mecânico temporário, um balão intra-aórtico, foi colocado na artéria subclávia esquerda, possibilitando o protocolo de exercícios. Antes e após um protocolo de exercícios, foram obtidos dados a partir de cateter de Swan-Ganz, amostra de sangue, peptídeo natriurético cerebral (NT-proBNP), proteína C reativa de alta sensibilidade (PCR-as), teste de caminhada de seis minutos (TC6min) e medição da saturação venosa de oxigênio (SvO2). O protocolo de treinamento físico envolveu a utilização de um cicloergômetro adaptado ao leito, sem carga, uma vez ao dia, por no máximo 30 minutos, até o limite da tolerância. Não foram observados eventos adversos tampouco relacionados ao deslocamento do balão intra-aórtico durante o protocolo de exercícios. O programa de exercícios resultou em maior SvO2 com aumento do TC6min e menores escores de dispneia de Borg (312 metros vs. 488 metros e cinco pontos vs. três pontos, respectivamente). Após completar o protocolo de exercícios de dez dias, o paciente foi submetido a uma cirurgia de transplante cardíaco sem complicações e recuperação total na UTI. O presente estudo demonstrou que o exercício é uma opção viável para pacientes com choque cardiogênico em uso de balão intra-aórtico e que é bem tolerado, além de não haver relatos de eventos adversos.

Single arterial access technique for simultaneous dual mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support is a treatment of choice for patients in severe cardiogenic shock. Combining veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) with devices that enable left ventricular unloading emerges as a promising strategy to diminish detrimental effect of elevated left ventricular afterload and to improve survival. However, the need to establish multiple arterial access sites remains a major drawback of this approach due to a significant rate of vascular complications. We describe herein a case of a single arterial access for ECLS and intra-aortic balloon pump using axillary artery that may provide a simple, modular and flexible approach for escalation or de-escalation of mechanical circulatory support.

Prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II Risk Score among cardiogenic shock subtypes in the critical care cardiology trials network registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has potential to guide triage and decision-making in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II score, derived in Europe for acute myocardial infarct-related CS (AMI-CS), in a contemporary North American cohort, including different CS phenotypes. METHODS: The critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) coordinated by the TIMI study group is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICU). Participating centers annually contribute ≥2 months of consecutive medical CICU admissions. The IABP-SHOCK II risk score includes age > 73 years, prior stroke, admission glucose > 191 mg/dl, creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, lactate > 5 mmol/l, and post-PCI TIMI flow grade < 3. We assessed the risk score across various CS etiologies. RESULTS: Of 17,852 medical CICU admissions 5,340 patients across 35 sites were admitted with CS. In patients with AMI-CS (n = 912), the IABP-SHOCK II score predicted a >3-fold gradient in in-hospital mortality (low risk = 26.5%, intermediate risk = 52.2%, high risk = 77.5%, P < .0001; c-statistic = 0.67; Hosmer-Lemeshow P = .79). The score showed a similar gradient of in-hospital mortality in patients with non-AMI-related CS (n = 2,517, P < .0001) and mixed shock (n = 923, P < .001), as well as in left ventricular (<0.0001), right ventricular (P = .0163) or biventricular (<0.0001) CS. The correlation between the IABP-SHOCK II score and SOFA was moderate (r2 = 0.17) and the IABP-SHOCK II score revealed a significant risk gradient within each SCAI stage. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected international multicenter registry of patients admitted with CS, the IABP- SHOCK II score only moderately predicted in-hospital mortality in a broad population of CS regardless of etiology or irrespective of right, left, or bi-ventricular involvement.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P-trend<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Primary Graft Dysfunction After Cardiac Transplantation: Results of an A Priori Ventless Approach.

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after cardiac transplantation is a devastating complication with increasing frequency lately in the setting of donation after circulatory death (DCD). Severe PGD is commonly treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) using central or peripheral cannulation. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of PGD after cardiac transplantation requiring ECMO support at our center from 2015 to 2020, focused on our now preferential approach using peripheral cannulation without a priori venting. During the study period, 255 patients underwent heart transplantation at our center and 26 (10.2%) of them required ECMO for PGD. Of 24 patients cannulated peripherally 19 (79%) were alive at 30 days and 17 (71%) 1 year after transplant; two additional patients underwent central ECMO cannulation due to unfavorable size of femoral vessels and concern for limb ischemia. Successful decannulation with full graft function recovery occurred in 22 of 24 (92%) patients cannulated peripherally. Six of them had an indwelling intra-aortic balloon pump placed before the transplantation. None of the other 18 patients received a ventricular vent. In conclusion, the use of an a priori peripheral and ventless ECMO approach in patients with PGD after heart transplant is an effective strategy associated with high rates of graft recovery and survival.

Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have compared Impella use to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS). METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD-10 codes (2015-2018) to identify patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity-matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS. RESULTS: Among 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.

Changing Trends in Mechanical Circulatory Support Use and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions for Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From a Nationwide Registry in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Temporal trends in the management of acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock after the revision of guideline recommendations for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use and the approval of the Impella require further investigation, because their impact remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Japanese Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (J-PCI) registry database from 2019 to 2021, we identified 12 171 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock under mechanical circulatory support. The patients were stratified into 3 groups: (1) IABP alone, (2) Impella, and (3) venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO); the VA-ECMO group was further stratified into (3a) VA-ECMO alone, (3b) VA-ECMO in combination with IABP, and (3c) VA-ECMO in combination with Impella. The quarterly prevalence and outcomes were reported. The use of IABP alone decreased significantly from 63.5% in the first quarter of 2019 to 58.3% in the fourth quarter of 2021 (P for trend=0.01). Among 4245 patients requiring VA-ECMO, the use of VA-ECMO in combination with IABP decreased significantly from 78.7% to 67.3%, whereas the use of VA-ECMO in combination with Impella increased significantly from 4.2% to 17.0% (P for trend <0.001 for both). After adjusting for the confounders, the risk difference in the fourth quarter of 2021 relative to the first quarter of 2019 for in-hospital mortality was not significant (adjusted odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.69-1.01]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed substantial changes in the use of different mechanical circulatory support modalities in acute coronary syndrome complicated with cardiogenic shock, but they did not significantly improve the outcomes.

Impella for the Management of Ventricular Septal Defect Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: A European Multicenter Registry.

Ventricular septal defect (VSD) is a rare but severe complication of myocardial infarction (MI). Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be used as a bridge to VSD closure, heart transplantation, or ventricular assist device. We describe the use of Impella device in this context based on a multicenter European retrospective registry (17 centers responded). Twenty-eight post-MI VSD patients were included (Impella device were 2.5 for 1 patient, CP for 20, 5.0 for 5, and unknown for 2). All patients were in cardiogenic shock with multiple organ failure (SAPS II 41 [interquantile range {IQR} = 27-53], lactate 4.0 ± 3.5 mmol/L) and catecholamine support (dobutamine 55% and norepinephrine 96%). Additional temporary MCS was used in 14 patients (50%), mainly extracorporeal life support (ECLS) (n = 9, 32%). Severe bleedings were frequent (50%). In-hospital and 1 year mortalities were 75%. Ventricular septal defect management was surgical for 36% of patients, percutaneous for 21%, and conservative for 43%. Only surgically managed patients survived (70% in-hospital survival). Type and combination of temporary MCS used were not associated with mortality (Impella alone or in combination with intra-aortic balloon pump [IABP] or ECLS, p = 0.84). Impella use in patients with post-MI VSD is feasible but larger prospective registries are necessary to further elucidate potential benefits of left ventricular unloading in this setting.

Effectiveness of VA-ECMO plus intra-aortic balloon pump for cardiac shock in patients with type A aortic dissection: a case series.

Limited reports exist on the utilization of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) following aortic dissection surgery, possibly due to concerns regarding complications. This case series aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using VA-ECMO in combination with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for managing postoperative cardiogenic shock in patients with type A aortic dissection (AAD). The study included nine patients with an average age of 57.0 ± 9.5 years. The patients underwent various surgical procedures, including coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic root reconstruction. The results showed that the combined use of VA-ECMO and IABP was feasible and effective in managing postoperative cardiogenic shock in AAD patients. However, the in-hospital mortality rate was high, with six out of nine patients succumbing to the condition. Among the patients who received VA-ECMO plus IABP in the operating room, four were successfully weaned from VA-ECMO, and three survived with a mean follow-up of 20 months. The study also highlighted the potential risks of renal complications associated with VA-ECMO and IABP. The findings suggest that the combined therapy of VA-ECMO and IABP may be beneficial for patients who have difficulty weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) after AAD surgery.

Beneficial Effects of IABP in Anterior Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Background and Objectives. Recent guidelines have downgraded the routine use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Despite this, its use in clinical practice remains high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of the IABP in patients with STEMI complicated by CS undergoing primary PCI (pPCI), focusing on patients with anterior MI in whom a major benefit has been previously hypothesized. Materials and Methods. We enrolled 2958 consecutive patients undergoing pPCI for STEMI in our department from 2005 to 2018. Propensity score matching and mortality analysis were performed. Results. CS occurred in 246 patients (8.3%); among these patients, 145 (60%) had anterior AMI. In the propensity-matched analysis, the use of the IABP was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (39.3% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.032) in the subgroup of patients with anterior STEMI. Conversely, in the whole group of CS patients and in the subgroup of patients with non-anterior STEMI, IABP use did not have a significant impact on mortality. Conclusions. The use of the IABP in cases of STEMI complicated by CS was found to improve survival in patients with anterior infarction. Prospective studies are needed before abandoning or markedly limiting the use of the IABP in this clinical setting.

[Impact of VA-ECMO combined with IABP and timing on outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock].

Objective: To investigate the impact of combined use and timing of arterial-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) on the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Methods: This was a prospective cohort study, patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock who received VA-ECMO support from the Heart Center of Lanzhou University First Hospital from March 2019 to March 2022 in the registration database of the Chinese Society for Extracorporeal Life Support were enrolled. According to combination with IABP and time point, patients were divided into VA-ECMO alone group, VA-ECMO+IABP concurrent group and VA-ECMO+IABP non-concurrent group. Data from 3 groups of patients were collected, including the demographic characteristics, risk factors, ECG and echocardiographic examination results, critical illness characteristics, coronary intervention results, VA-ECMO related parameters and complications were compared among the three groups. The primary clinical endpoint was all-cause death, and the safety indicators of mechanical circulatory support included a decrease in hemoglobin greater than 50 g/L, gastrointestinal bleeding, bacteremia, lower extremity ischemia, lower extremity thrombosis, acute kidney injury, pulmonary edema and stroke. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze the survival outcomes of patients within 30 days of follow-up. Using VA-ECMO+IABP concurrent group as reference, multivariate Cox regression model was used to evaluate the effect of the combination of VA-ECMO+IABP at different time points on the prognosis of AMICS patients within 30 days. Results: The study included 68 AMICS patients who were supported by VA-ECMO, average age was (59.8±10.8) years, there were 12 female patients (17.6%), 19 cases were in VA-ECMO alone group, 34 cases in VA-ECMO+IABP concurrent group and 15 cases in VA-ECMO+IABP non-concurrent group. The success rate of ECMO weaning in the VA-ECMO+IABP concurrent group was significantly higher than that in the VA-ECMO alone group and the VA-ECMO+IABP non-concurrent group (all P<0.05). Compared with the ECMO+IABP non-concurrent group, the other two groups had shorter ECMO support time, lower rates of acute kidney injury complications (all P<0.05), and lower rates of pulmonary edema complications in the ECMO alone group (P<0.05). In-hospital survival rate was significantly higher in the VA-ECMO+IABP concurrent group (28 patients (82.4%)) than in the VA-ECMO alone group (9 patients) and VA-ECMO+IABP non-concurrent group (7 patients) (all P<0.05). The survival rate up to 30 days of follow-up was also significantly higher surviving patients within were in the ECMO+IABP concurrent group (26 cases) than in VA-ECMO alone group (9 patients) and VA-ECMO+IABP non-concurrent group (4 patients) (all P<0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that compared with the concurrent use of VA-ECMO+IABP, the use of VA-ECMO alone and non-concurrent use of VA-ECMO+IABP were associated with increased 30-day mortality in AMICS patients (HR=2.801, P=0.036; HR=2.985, P=0.033, respectively). Conclusions: When VA-ECMO is indicated for AMICS patients, combined use with IABP at the same time can improve the ECMO weaning rate, in-hospital survival and survival at 30 days post discharge, and which does not increase additional complications.

A goal-oriented hemodynamic approach to acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock-A single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) is the most common cause of mortality following AMI, and treatment algorithms vary widely. We report the results of an analysis using time-sensitive, hemodynamic goals in the treatment of AMI-CS in a single center study. METHODS: Consecutive patients with AMI-CS from November 2016 through December 2021 were included in our retrospective analysis. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed using the electronic medical records. We identified 63 total patients who were admitted to our center with AMI-CS, and we excluded patients who did not have clear timing of AMI onset or CS onset. We evaluated the rate of survival to hospital discharge based on the quantity of certain time-sensitive hemodynamic goals were met. RESULTS: We identified 63 patients who met criteria for AMI-CS, 39 (62%) of whom survived to hospital discharge. Odds of survival were closely related to the achievement of four time-dependent goals: cardiac power output (CPO) >0.6 Watts (W), pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) >1, lactate <4 mmol/L, and <2 vasopressors required. Of the 63 total patients, 36 (57%) received intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and 18 (29%) received an Impella CP (Abiomed) as an initial mechanical circulatory support strategy. Six patients were escalated from IABP to Impella CP for additional hemodynamic support. Nine patients were treated with vasopressors/inotropes alone. Regarding the 39 patients who survived to hospital discharge, 75% of patients met 3 or 4 goals at 24 h, whereas only 16% of deceased patients met 3 or 4 goals at 24 h. Of the 24 patients who did not survive to hospital discharge, 18 (75%) met either 0-1 goal at 24 h. There was no effect of the initial treatment strategy on achieving 3-4 goals at 24 h. CONCLUSION: Our study evaluated the association of meeting 4 time-sensitive goals (CPO >0.6 W, PAPi >1, <2 vasopressors, and lactate <4 mmol/L) at 24 h after treatment for AMI-CS with in-hospital mortality. Our data show, in line with previous data, that the higher number of goals met at 24 h was associated with improved in-hospital mortality regardless of treatment strategy.

Perspectives and Considerations of IABP in the Era of ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock.

The development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been rapid, and its use worldwide in patients with cardiogenic shock is increasingly widespread. However, current statistical data and clinical research do not demonstrate its significant improvement in the patient prognosis. This review focuses on the widely used intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), analyzing and comparing their characteristics, efficacy, risk of complications, and the current exploration status of left ventricular mechanical unloading. Subsequently, we propose a rational approach to viewing the negative outcomes of current MCS, and look ahead to the future development trends of IABP.

Trends and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease: Insights From USRDS Database.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding epidemiology, temporal trends, and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and end-stage renal disease (chronic kidney disease stage V on hemodialysis). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the United States Renal Data System database from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. We analyzed trends of CS, percutaneous mechanical support (intraaortic balloon pump, percutaneous ventricular assist device [Impella and Tandemheart], and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) utilization, index mortality, 30-day mortality, and 1-year all-cause mortality in end-stage renal disease patients. RESULTS: A total of 43 825 end-stage renal disease patients were hospitalized with CS (median age, 67.8 years [IQR, 59.4-75.8] and 59.1% men). From 2006 to 2019, the incidence of CS increased from 275 to 578 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). The index mortality rate declined from 54.1% in 2006 to 40.8% in 2019 (Ptrend=0.44), and the 1-year all-cause mortality decreased from 63% in 2006 to 61.8% in 2018 (Ptrend=0.73), but neither trend was statistically significant. There was a significantly decreased utilization of intra-aortic balloon pumps from 17 832 to 7992 (Ptrend<0.001), increased utilization of percutaneous ventricular assist device from 137 to 5201 (Ptrend<0.001) and increase in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use from 69 to 904 per 100 000 patients (Ptrend<0.001). After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in index mortality between CS patients requiring percutaneous mechanical support versus those not requiring percutaneous mechanical support (odds ratio, 0.97 [CI, 0.91-1.02]; P=0.22). On multivariable regression analysis, older age, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and time on dialysis were independent predictors of higher index mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CS in end-stage renal disease patients has doubled without significant change in the trend of index mortality despite the use of percutaneous mechanical support.

Concomitant intra-aortic balloon pump and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.

We aimed to compare the outcomes of ECMO with and without IABP for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. The study included 103 patients who needed ECMO for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. Patients were grouped according to the use of IABP into ECMO without IABP (n = 43) and ECMO with IABP (n = 60). The study endpoints were hospital complications, successful weaning, and survival. Patients with IABP had lower preoperative ejection fraction (p = 0.002). There was no difference in stroke (p = 0.97), limb ischemic (p = 0.32), and duration of ICU stay (p = 0.11) between groups. Successful weaning was non-significantly higher with IABP (36 (60%) vs 19 (44.19%); p = 0.11). Predictors of successful weaning were inversely related to the high pre-ECMO lactate levels (OR: 0.89; p = 0.01), active endocarditis (OR: 0.06; p = 0.02), older age (OR: 0.95; p = 0.02), and aortic valve replacement (OR: 0.26; p = 0.04). There was no difference in survival between groups (p = 0.80). Our study did not support the routine use of IABP during ECMO support.

[Intraaortic Ballon-pump: Physiology, Indication, Management]. / Intraaortale Ballonpumpe: Physiologie, Indikationen, Management.

The intraaortic ballon-pump (IABP) is a percutaneous mechanical circulatory support device, which is used in patients either with insufficient cardiac output or in patients with high-risk situation before cardiac intervention, like surgical revascularisation or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Due to electrocardiographic or arterial pressure pulse the IABP augments diastolic coronary perfusion pressure and reduces systolic afterload. Thereby, myocardial oxygen supply-demand ratio is improved and cardiac output is increased. Many national and international cardiology, cardiothoracic and intensive care medicine societies and associations worked together in order to develop evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of the IABP. This manuscript is mainly based on the S3 guideline "Use of intraaortic balloon-pump in cardiac surgery" from the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (DGTHG).

Management and clinical outcomes of cardiogenic shock in King Abdulaziz University Hospital: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess frequencies of various management approaches in cardiogenic shock (CS) and their clinical outcomes. Cardiogenic shock is a state of organ hypoperfusion and hypoxia caused by cardiac failure. METHODS: In this retrospective record review, we assessed the presentations, vital signs, laboratory readings, and treatments for 188 consecutive CS inpatients from 2010-2021. Patients were labeled as "ischemic CS" or "non-ischemic CS" based on the occurrence of myocardial infarction as the precipitating cause, and "post-operative CS" if they had undergone cardiac surgery. In-hospital mortality was the primary endpoint of the study. RESULTS: We identified 118 (62.8%) ischemic, 64 (34%) non-ischemic, and 6 (3.2%) postoperative CS patients. The study population had a high mortality rate (85.1%). Logistic regression analysis revealed that dopamine (p=0.040) and epinephrine (p=0.001) were independent predictors of mortality, while dobutamine (p=0.004) and digoxin (p=0.044) associated with increased survival. No significant association with mortality was found between either PCI or IABP. No significant difference in mortality was observed between CS subgroups. CONCLUSION: Variations in outcomes occurred with different medications. Mortality was higher in patients receiving dopamine or epinephrine and lower in those receiving dobutamine or digoxin. Implementation of clinical trials for investigation of the mortality benefit observed with dobutamine can serve towards formulation of new guidelines for improvement of CS mortality rates.

Relationship between the volume of cases and in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving short-term mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: We examined the relationship between annual case volume at each hospital and outcome in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used the Japanese nationwide database to identify patients receiving short-term MCS for CS between April 2012 and March 2020. Of 65,837 patients, 3 subcohorts were created; the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) alone (n = 48,643), the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (n = 16,871), and the Impella cohorts (n = 696). RESULTS: The median annual case volume was 13.5 (7.4-22.1) in the IABP alone cohort, 6.4 (3.4-11.0) in the ECMO cohort, and 7.5 (4.0-10.7) in the Impella cohort. The highest quintile for the volume of cases in the IABP alone and ECMO had the lowest in-hospital mortality (IABP alone, 25.1% in quintile 1 vs 15.2% in quintile 5; ECMO, 73.7% in quintile 1 in 67.4% in quintile 5). Adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality decreased as case volume increased (IABP alone, 0.63 [0.58-0.68] in quintile 5; ECMO, 0.73 [0.65-0.82] in quintile 5, with the lowest quintile as reference) but did not decrease significantly in the Impella (0.90 [0.58-1.39] in tertile 3, with the lowest tertile as reference). In the continuous models with the case volume as a continuous variable, adjusted ORs for in-hospital mortality decreased to 28 IABP cases/year and 12 ECMO cases/year. They did not decrease or became almost flat above that. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volumes of IABP and ECMO are associated with a lower mortality. There is an upper limit to the decline. Centralizing patients with refractory CS in a particular hospital might improve patient outcomes in each region.

Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support with and without intra-aortic balloon in cardiogenic shock patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical characteristics and in-hospital bleeding complications and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) associated with the use of Impella alone or the combination of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with Impella in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: All CS patients who underwent PCI and were treated with an Impella mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device were identified. Patients were divided into two groups: having MCS support with Impella alone or with both, IABP and Impella simultaneously (dual MCS group). Bleeding complications were classified by a modified Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification. Major bleeding was defined as BARC≥3 bleeding. MACCE was the composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events and major bleeding complications. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2018 a total of 101 patients were treated at six tertiary care New York hospitals with either Impella (n = 61) or dual MCS with Impella and IABP (n = 40). Clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. Dual MCS patients presented more often with a STEMI (77.5 % vs. 45.9 %, p = 0.002) and had left main coronary artery intervention (20.3 % vs. 8.6 %, p = 0.03). Major bleeding complications (69.4 % vs. 74.1 %, p = 0.62) and MACCE rates (80.6 % vs. 79.3 %, p = 0.88) were very high but similar in both groups, however access site bleeding complications were lower in patients treated with dual MCS. In-hospital mortality was 29.5 % for the Impella group and 25.0 % for the dual MCS group (p = 062). Access site bleeding complications were lower in in patients treated with dual MCS (5.0 % vs. 24.6 %, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In CS patients undergoing PCI with either the Impella device alone or with Impella and IABP, major bleeding complications and MACCE rates were high but not significantly different between the two groups. In hospital mortality was relatively low in both MCS groups despite the high-risk characteristics of these patients. Future studies should assess the risks and benefits of the simultaneous use of these two MCS in CS patients undergoing PCI.