Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in Ukraine: multicentre registry analysis 2021-2022

Background

Data on the results and management strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in the Low and Lower-Middle Income Countries (LLMICs) are limited. This lack of understanding of the situation partially hinders the development of effective cardiogenic shock treatment programs in this part of the world.

Materials and methods

The Ukrainian Multicentre Cardiogenic Shock Registry was analyzed, covering patient data from 2021 to 2022 in 6 major Ukrainian reperfusion centres from different parts of the country. Analysis was focusing on outcomes, therapeutic modalities and mortality predictors in AMI-CS patients.

Results

We analyzed data from 221 consecutive patients with CS from 6 hospitals across Ukraine. The causes of CS were ST-elevated myocardial infarction (85.1%), non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction (5.9%), decompensated chronic heart failure (7.7%) and arrhythmia (1.3%), with a total in-hospital mortality rate for CS of 57.1%. The prevalence of CS was 6.3% of all AMI with reperfusion rate of 90.5% for AMI-CS. In 23.5% of cases, CS developed in the hospital after admission. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) utilization was 19.9% using intra-aortic balloon pump alone. Left main stem occlusion, reperfusion deterioration, Charlson Comorbidity Index >4, and cardiac arrest were found to be independent predictors for hospital mortality in AMI-СS.

Conclusions

Despite the wide adoption of primary percutaneous coronary intervention as the main reperfusion strategy for AMI, СS remains a significant problem in LLMICs, associated with high in-hospital mortality. There is an unmet need for the development and implementation of a nationwide protocol for CS management and the creation of reference CS centers based on the country-wide reperfusion network, equipped with modern technologies for MCS.

Intra-aortic and Intra-caval Balloon Pump Devices in Experimental Non-traumatic Cardiac Arrest and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during CPR has been scarcely studied. Intra-caval balloon pump (ICBP) may decrease backward venous flow during CPR. Mechanical chest compressions (MCC) were initiated after 10 min of cardiac arrest in anesthetized pigs. After 5 min of MCC, IABP (n = 6) or ICBP (n = 6) was initiated. The MCC device and the IABP/ICBP had slightly different frequencies, inducing a progressive peak pressure phase shift. IABP inflation 0.15 s before MCC significantly increased mean arterial pressure (MAP) and carotid blood flow (CBF) compared to inflation 0.10 s after MCC and to MCC only. Coronary perfusion pressure significantly increased with IABP inflation 0.25 s before MCC compared to inflation at MCC. ICBP inflation before MCC significantly increased MAP and CBF compared to inflation after MCC but not compared to MCC only. This shows the potential of IABP in CPR when optimally synchronized with MCC. The effect of timing of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) inflation during mechanical chest compressions (MCC) on hemodynamics. Data from12 anesthetized pigs.

Effects of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The survival benefit of using mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still controversial. It is necessary to explore the impact on clinical outcomes of MCS in patients with AMI undergoing stenting.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Clinicaltrialsregister.eu databases were searched from database inception to February 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on MCS use in patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated for clinical outcomes according to random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve studies of 1497 patients with AMI were included, nine studies including 1382 patients compared MCS with non-MCS, and three studies including 115 patients compared percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) versus intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Compared with non-MCS, MCS was not associated with short-term (within 30 days) (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.41; I²=46.8%) and long-term (at least 6 months) (RR=0.82; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; I²=37.6%) mortality reductions. In the subset of patients without cardiogenic shock (CS) compared with non-MCS, the patients with IABP treatment significantly had decreased long-term mortality (RR=0.49; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; I²=0), but without the short-term mortality reductions (RR=0.51; 95% CI 0.22 to 1.19; I²=17.9%). While in the patients with CS, the patients with MCS did not benefit from the short-term (RR=1.09; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; I²=46.6%) or long-term (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33; I²=22.1%) survival. Moreover, the application of pVADs increased risk of bleeding (RR=1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.00; I²=15.3%) compared with IABP treatment (RR=1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.00; I²=15.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In all patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation, the MCS use does not reduce all-cause mortality. Patients without CS can benefit from MCS regarding long-term survival, while patients with CS seem not.

Axial flow ventricular assist devices in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the leading cause of death in patients hospitalised with acute myocardial infarction with mortality as high as 40%-50% prior to hospital discharge. The failure of inotropic therapy to maintain adequate perfusion and to prevent irreversible end-organ failure has led to attempts to improve outcomes by mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. Axial flow ventricular assist devices, namely Impella, are an attractive therapeutic option due to their positive haemodynamic benefits and ease of use. Despite clear beneficial haemodynamic effects, which should significantly impact on the pathophysiology of CS, there are currently no clear data to support their use in the reduction of clinical end points such as cardiac death. This review summarises and critically evaluates the current scientific evidence for the use of axial flow ventricular assist devices and highlights gaps in our understanding. Given such gaps, a consensus multidisciplinary approach, predicated on emphasising timely diagnosis and appropriate use of MCS, is vital to ensure that the right patient is paired with the right device at the right time.

The Preference, Effect, and Prognosis of Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUNDS

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The aim of this study was to explore the preference, effect, and prognosis of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock patients.

METHODS

Data of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock patients at the Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital were collected retrospectively. A propensity score was calculated with a logistic regression which contained clinically meaningful variables and variables selected by Lasso and then used to match the control group. The cumulative incidence curve and Gray's test were employed to analyse the effect and prognosis of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation on mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1962 acute myocardial infarction cases admitted between May 2015 and November 2018 were identified, and 223 cases with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock were included as the study cohort, which contained 34 cases that received IABP and 189 cases that did not receive IABP. Patients with higher alanine aminotransferase (OR = 1.93, 95% CI 1.29-2.98), higher triglyceride (OR = 3.71, 95% CI 1.87-7.95), and higher blood glucose (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.18) had a higher probability of receiving intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. In the propensity score matching analysis, 34 cases received intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and 102 matched controls were included in the comparison. By comparing the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between the intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation group and matched control group (P = 0.454).

CONCLUSION

The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation may not improve the prognosis of the acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock patients.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) as complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery are life-threatening conditions. While there is a broad body of evidence for the treatment of people with acute coronary syndrome under stable haemodynamic conditions, the treatment strategies for people who become haemodynamically unstable or develop CS remain less clear. We have therefore summarised here the evidence on the treatment of people with CS or LCOS with different inotropic agents and vasodilative drugs. This is the first update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in people with CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in June 2017. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery complicated by cardiogenic shock or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 13 eligible studies with 2001 participants (mean or median age range 58 to 73 years) and two ongoing studies. We categorised studies into eight comparisons, all against cardiac care and additional other active drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo, epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine, amrinone versus dobutamine, dopexamine versus dopamine, enoximone versus dopamine and nitric oxide versus placebo.All trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analysis was done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Twelve of 13 trials were small with few included participants. Acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements emerged in five of 13 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to serious study limitations, very serious imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which show a high risk of more than 50%, include performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.Levosimendan may reduce short-term mortality compared to a therapy with dobutamine (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 6 studies; 1776 participants; low-quality evidence; NNT: 16 (patients with moderate risk), NNT: 5 (patients with CS)). This initial short-term survival benefit with levosimendan vs. dobutamine is not confirmed on long-term follow up. There is uncertainty (due to lack of statistical power) as to the effect of levosimendan compared to therapy with placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.94; 2 studies; 55 participants, very low-quality evidence) or enoximone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.14; 1 study; 32 participants, very low-quality evidence).All comparisons comparing other positive inotropic, inodilative or vasodilative drugs presented uncertainty on their effect on short-term mortality with very low-quality evidence and based on only one RCT. These single studies compared epinephrine with norepinephrine-dobutamine (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; 30 participants), amrinone with dobutamine (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.85; 30 participants), dopexamine with dopamine (no in-hospital deaths from 70 participants), enoximone with dobutamine (two deaths from 40 participants) and nitric oxide with placebo (one death from three participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Apart from low quality of evidence data suggesting a short-term mortality benefit of levosimendan compared with dobutamine, at present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug-based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable people with cardiogenic shock or LCOS.Considering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a generally high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there remains a great need for large, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care medicine and the available evidence. It seems to be useful to apply the concept of 'early goal-directed therapy' in cardiogenic shock and LCOS with early haemodynamic stabilisation within predefined timelines. Future clinical trials should therefore investigate whether such a therapeutic concept would influence survival rates much more than looking for the 'best' drug for haemodynamic support.

Integration of medical therapy and mechanical circulatory support in the management of acute heart failure

Acute heart failure is still characterized by poor prognosis with high mortality. Diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms and hemodynamic measurements. Early coronary revascularization in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction improves outcome. The further contemporary therapeutic options in the management of acute heart failure are limited to a merely symptomatic effect with relief of dyspnea, reduction of volume overload and improvement of hemodynamic parameters by vasodilators (in hypertension) or inotropic and vasopressor agents (in hypotension). However, so far no medical therapy has been shown to positively affect clinical outcomes of patients with acute heart failure. Early identification of impending circulatory collapse coupled with rapid implementation of mechanical circulatory support may contribute to mortality reduction as a combined concept of the management of acute heart failure.

Benefits of Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction Patients in Severe Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Coronary Revascularization

Background

Prior studies have suggested intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) have a neutral effect on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, the effects of IABP on patients with severe CS remain unclear. We therefore investigated the benefits of IABP in AMI patients with severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization.

Methods and Results

This study identified 14,088 adult patients with AMI and severe CS undergoing coronary revascularization from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2011, dividing them into the IABP group (n = 7044) and the Nonusers group (n = 7044) after propensity score matching to equalize confounding variables. The primary outcomes included myocardial infarction(MI), cerebrovascular accidents or cardiovascular death. In-hospital events including dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis were secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were worse in the IABP group than in the Nonusers group in 1 month (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.84–2.12). The MI rate was higher in the IABP group (HR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.16–1.79), and the cardiovascular death was much higher in the IABP group (HR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.92–2.23). The IABP users had lower incidence of dialysis (8.5% and 9.5%, P = 0.04), stroke (2.6% and 3.8%, P<0.001), pneumonia (13.9% and 16.5%, P<0.001) and sepsis (13.2% and 16%, P<0.001) during hospitalization than Nonusers.

Conclusion

The use of IABP in patients with myocardial infarction and severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularization did not improve the outcomes of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. However, it did reduce the incidence of dialysis, stroke, pneumonia and sepsis during hospitalization.

Use of left ventricular support devices during acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention

In an effort to improve outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) have been investigated in (1) high-risk PCI, (2) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) and (3) in AMI without CS. PCI has become an increasing complex due to an ageing population with complex disease and the frequent presence of impaired LV function. Patients undergoing high-risk PCI in these circumstances are prone to acute cardiovascular collapse. Additionally, mortality in AMI complicated by CS remains high. Lastly, LV support during AMI may reduce infarct size and therefore preserve LV function. At present, four commercially available devices exist: intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP), Impella, TandemHeart and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). These devices are employed in an effort to increase cardiac output, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and coronary perfusion and to reduce pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). The mechanism of action differs with each device, and there are advantages and disadvantages. In this update, we discuss recent data describing the use of PVADs to support patients with AMI with or without cardiogenic shock and during high-risk PCI. We focus on the unique features of each device, highlighting strengths, weaknesses and frequently encountered complications, which may be important when tailoring the most appropriate PVAD therapy to an individual patient's need.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Response and Predictors of Stabilization

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to characterize the clinical response and identify predictors of clinical stabilization after intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) support in patients with chronic systolic heart failure in cardiogenic shock before implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding the clinical response to IABP in patients with chronic heart failure in cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

We identified 54 patients supported with IABP before LVAD implantation. Criteria for clinical decompensation after IABP insertion and before LVAD included the need for more advanced temporary support, initiation of mechanical ventilation or dialysis, increase in vasopressors/inotropes, refractory ventricular arrhythmias, or worsening acidosis. The absence of these indicated stabilization.

RESULTS

Clinical decompensation after IABP occurred in 23 patients (43%). Both patients who decompensated and those who stabilized had similar hemodynamic improvements after IABP support, but patients who decompensated required more vasopressors/inotropes. Clinical decompensation after IABP was associated with worse outcomes after LVAD implantation, including a 3-fold longer intensive care unit stay and 5-fold longer time on mechanical ventilation (P < .01 for both). Although baseline characteristics were similar between groups, right and left ventricular cardiac power indexes (cardiac power index = cardiac index × mean arterial pressure/451) identified patients who were likely to stabilize (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with chronic systolic heart failure who develop cardiogenic shock, more than one-half of patients stabilized with IABP support as a bridge to LVAD. Baseline measures of right and left ventricular cardiac power, reflecting work performed for a given flow and pressure, may allow clinicians to identify patients with sufficient contractile reserve who will be likely to stabilize with an IABP versus those who may need more aggressive ventricular support.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support: a review of the options, indications, and outcomes

Cardiogenic shock remains a challenging disease entity and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be implemented in an acute setting to stabilize acutely ill patients with cardiomyopathy in a variety of clinical situations. Currently, several options exist for temporary MCS. We review the indications, contraindications, clinical applications, and evidences for a variety of temporary circulatory support options, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), CentriMag blood pump, and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), specifically the TandemHeart and Impella.

Effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation pump on mortality of acute myocardial infarction

Background

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the effect of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation pump(IABP) on the mortality of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Objectives

To analyze the relevant RCT data on the effect of IABP on mortality and the occurrence of bleeding in AMI.

Data Sources

Published RCTs on the treatment of AMI by IABP were retrieved in searches of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and other related databases. The last search was conducted on July 20, 2014.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Randomized clinical trials comparing IABP to controls as treatment for AMI.

Participants

Patients with AMI.

Synthesis Methods

The primary endpoint was mortality, and the secondary endpoint was bleeding events. To account for to heterogeneity, a random-effects model was used to analyze the study data.

Results

Ten trials with a total population of 973 patients that were included in the analysis showed no significant difference in 2-month mortality between the IABP and the control groups. The 6-month mortality in the IABP group was not significantly lower than in the control group in the four RCTs that enrolled 59 AMI patients with CS. But in the four that enrolled AMI 66 patients without CS, the data showed opposite conclusion.

Conclusions

IABP cannot reduce within 2 months and 6–12 months mortality of AMI patients with CS as well as within 2 months mortality of AMI patients without CS, but can reduce 6–12 months mortality of AMI patients without CS. In addition, IABP can increase the risk of bleeding.

Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials (protocol)

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock is the leading cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Despite significant advancements in health technology and research, hospital mortality approaches 50%. The intra-aortic balloon pump is a mechanical hemodynamic assist device that has been used for over 40 years in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock. A recent randomized trial suggests that the use of intra-aortic balloon pumps does not reduce mortality in patients with ischemic cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

We plan to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Trial Registry for potentially eligible randomized trials that compare the use of intra-aortic balloon pump with no mechanical device support in patients with cardiogenic shock. No date, language or journal limitations will be applied. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies using predefined eligibility criteria. Data abstraction will be done independently and in duplicate. We plan to use RevMan software to generate pooled estimates across included studies, using the previously published method of DerSimonian and Laird. We will report pooled estimates as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for binary outcomes, and as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. We will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of the intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42014007056.

Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome

BACKGROUND

The recently published German-Austrian S3 Guideline for the treatment of infarct related cardiogenic shock (CS) revealed a lack of evidence for all recommended therapeutic measures.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety of cardiac care with inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies versus placebo or against each other for haemodynamic stabilisation following surgical treatment, interventional therapy (angioplasty, stent implantation) and conservative treatment (that is no revascularization) on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by CS or low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and ISI Web of Science, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences in January 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field were contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in patients with AMI complicated by CS or LCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. All trials were analysed individually. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted but not pooled because of high heterogeneity between the control group interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Four eligible, very small studies were identified from a total of 4065 references. Three trials with high overall risk of bias compared levosimendan to standard treatment (enoximone or dobutamine) or placebo. Data from a total of 63 participants were included in our comparisons, 31 were treated with levosimendan and 32 served as controls. Levosimendan showed an imprecise survival benefit in comparison with enoximone based on a very small trial with 32 participants (HR 0.33; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.97). Results from the other similarly small trials were too imprecise to provide any meaningful information about the effect of levosimendan in comparison with dobutamine or placebo. Only small differences in haemodynamics, length of hospital stay and the frequency of major adverse cardiac events or adverse events overall were found between study groups.Only one small randomised controlled trial with three participants was found for vasodilator strategies (nitric oxide gas versus placebo) in AMI complicated by CS or LCOS. This study was too small to draw any conclusions on the effects on our key outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present there are no robust and convincing data to support a distinct inotropic or vasodilator drug based therapy as a superior solution to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable patients with CS or low cardiac output complicating AMI.

Evidence-based Management of Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Guidelines for evidence-based management of patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction focuses on early revascularisation of the occluded coronary artery as well as on support of cardiac failure and improvement of impaired organ perfusion. Also of great importance is effective treatment of shock complications, especially acute respiratory failure and other forms of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). Cardiovascular therapy has to be accompanied by best general intensive care of these critically ill patients with high mortality. Most lives can be saved by early revascularisation, and this class I recommendation has a high level of evidence. So far, most of the other guideline recommendations are of low evidence level, in most cases based on expert opinions. Recently, the Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP SHOCK II) trial with 600 patients has shown that adjunctive IABP therapy - for long a class I recommendation - does not reduce 30-day and six-month motality.

Percutaneous Assist Devices for Left Ventricular Shock

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) are increasingly being used for hemodynamic support in patients with cardiogenic shock as well as for patients undergoing high-risk cardiovascular procedures. The currently available PVADs for left ventricular shock are reviewed; the evidence for supporting PVAD use is discussed, and the authors' perspective on their unique clinical applications is offered.

Cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: diagnosis, monitoring and treatment: a German-Austrian S3 Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Infarction-related cardiogenic shock (ICS) is usually due to left-ventricular pump failure. With a mortality of 30% to 80%, ICS is the most common cause of death from acute myocardial infarction. The S3 guideline presented here characterizes the current evidence-based treatment of ICS: early revascularization, treatment of shock, and intensive care treatment of multi-organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) if it arises. The success or failure of treatment for MODS determines the outcome in ICS.

METHODS

Experts from eight German and Austrian specialty societies analyzed approximately 3600 publications that had been retrieved by a systematic literature search. Three interdisciplinary consensus conferences were held, resulting in the issuing of 111 recommendations and algorithms for this S3 guideline.

RESULTS

Early revascularization of the occluded vessel, usually with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), is of paramount importance. The medical treatment of shock consists of dobutamine as the inotropic agent and norepinephrine as the vasopressor of choice and is guided by a combination of pressure and flow values, or by the cardiac power index. Levosimendan can be given in addition to treat catecholamine-resistant shock. For patients with ICS who are treated with PCI, the current S3 guideline differs from the European and American myocardial infarction guidelines with respect to the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pulsation (IABP): Whereas the former guidelines give a class I recommendation for IABP, this S3 guideline states only that IABP "can" be used in this situation, in view of the poor state of the evidence. Only for patients being treated with systemic fibrinolysis is IABP weakly recommended (IABP "should" be used in such cases). With regard to the optimal intensive-care interventions for the prevention and treatment of MODS, recommendations are given concerning ventilation, nutrition, erythrocyte-concentrate transfusion, prevention of thrombosis and stress ulcers, follow-up care, and rehabilitation.

DISCUSSION

The goal of this S3 guideline is to bring together the types of treatment for ICS that lie in the disciplines of cardiology and intensive-care medicine, as patients with ICS die not only of pump failure, but also (and even more frequently) of MODS. This is the first guideline that adequately emphasizes the significance of MODS as a determinant of the outcome of ICS.