IABP and cardiogenic shock: A heartbreaking story

Effects of intra-aortic balloon pump on in-hospital outcomes and 1-year mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

The role of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still a subject of intense debate. In this study, we aim to investigate the effect of IABP on the clinical outcomes of patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

From the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV 2.2, 6017 AMI patients were subtracted, and 250 patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI were analyzed. In-hospital outcomes (death, 24-hour urine volumes, length of ICU stays, and length of hospital stays) and 1-year mortality were compared between IABP and control during the hospital course and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

An IABP was implanted in 30.8% (77/250) of patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI. IABP patients had higher levels of Troponin T (3.94 [0.73-11.85] ng/ml vs. 1.99 [0.55-5.75] ng/ml, p-value = 0.02). IABP patients have a longer length of ICU and hospital stays (124 [63-212] hours vs. 83 [43-163] hours, p-value = 0.005; 250 [128-435] hours vs. 170 [86-294] hours, p-value = 0.009). IABP use was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality (33.8% vs. 33.0%, p-value = 0.90) and increased 24-hour urine volumes (2100 [1455-3208] ml vs. 1915 [1110-2815] ml, p-value = 0.25). In addition, 1-year mortality was not different between the IABP and the control group (48.1% vs. 48.0%; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.70-1.54, p-value = 0.851).

CONCLUSION

IABP may be associated with longer ICU and hospital stays but not better short-and long-term clinical prognosis.

Cardiogenic Shock and the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Assist Devices

Percutaneous mechanical assist devices are used in patients with cardiogenic shock. The purpose of this article is to familiarize critical care nurses with the various types of percutaneous mechanical assist devices, including the intra-aortic balloon pump, the Impella device, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and the TandemHeart device. Each type of device requires specific nursing care. In a patient with cardiogenic shock, the monitoring, care, and interventions provided by an experienced critical care nurse can make the difference between survival and death.

Intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock: A propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) on patients with cardiogenic shock in an intensive care unit setting.

BACKGROUND

IABP counterpulsation is a widely used mechanical circulatory support device, but its performance has been questioned. However, current evidence of IABP use in cardiogenic shock is very limited (mainly from the IABP-SHOCK II trial), which was restricted to cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, real-world, cohort study based on the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database. Adult patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock were eligible.

RESULTS

A total of 1028 patients with cardiogenic shock were assessed, including 384 patients who received IABP and 644 patients who did not. The in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received IABP (adjusted odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.91, p = 0.009). Analysis of secondary endpoints found that the use of IABP was associated with a significantly lower risk of 1-year mortality. After propensity score matching, the in-hospital mortality remained significantly lower in the IABP group (28.10% vs. 37.59%, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

In the current cohort, IABP treatment was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Due to the complexity of pathophysiology in cardiogenic shock and the discrepancies in current evidence, our results should be validated through further studies in the future.

To Balloon or Not to Balloon? The Effects of an Intra-Aortic Balloon-Pump on Coronary Artery Flow during Extracorporeal Circulation Simulating Normal and Low Cardiac Output Syndromes

ECMO is the most frequently used mechanical support for patients suffering from low cardiac output syndrome. Combining IABP with ECMO is believed to increase coronary artery blood flow, decrease high afterload, and restore systemic pulsatile flow conditions. This study evaluates that combined effect on coronary artery flow during various load conditions using an in vitro circuit. In doing so, different clinical scenarios were simulated, such as normal cardiac output and moderate-to-severe heart failure. In the heart failure scenarios, we used peripheral ECMO support to compensate for the lowered cardiac output value and reach a default normal value. The increase in coronary blood flow using the combined IABP-ECMO setup was more noticeable in low heart rate conditions. At baseline, intermediate and severe LV failure levels, adding IABP increased coronary mean flow by 16%, 7.5%, and 3.4% (HR 60 bpm) and by 6%, 4.5%, and 2.5% (HR 100 bpm) respectively. Based on our in vitro study results, combining ECMO and IABP in a heart failure setup further improves coronary blood flow. This effect was more pronounced at a lower heart rate and decreased with heart failure, which might positively impact recovery from cardiac failure.

Mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock not secondary to cardiotomy: a network meta-analysis

To compare the efficacy and safety of different mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in CS. A total of 24 studies (7 randomized controlled trials—RCTs—and 17 non-RCTs) involving 11,117 patients were entered in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were stroke and bleeding (requiring transfusion and/or intracranial and/or fatal). Compared with no MCS, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) reduced 30-day mortality when used both alone (OR 0.37, 95% CrI 0.15–0.90) and together with the micro-axial pump Impella (OR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.02–0.80) or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.05–0.63), although the relevant articles were affected by significant publication bias. Consistent results were obtained in a sensitivity analysis including only studies of CS due to myocardial infarction. After halving the weight of studies with a non-RCT design, only the benefit of ECMO + IABP on 30-day mortality was maintained (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.057–0.76). The risk of bleeding was increased by TandemHeart (OR 13, 95% CrI 3.50–59), Impella (OR 5, 95% CrI 1.60–18), and IABP (OR 2.2, 95% CrI 1.10–4.4). No significant differences were found across MCS strategies regarding stroke. Although limited by important quality issues, the studies performed so far indicate that ECMO, especially if combined with Impella or IABP, reduces short-term mortality in CS. MCS increases the hazard of bleeding.

Artificial liver support systems: what is new over the last decade?

The liver is a complex organ that performs vital functions of synthesis, heat production, detoxification and regulation; its failure carries a highly critical risk. At the end of the last century, some artificial liver devices began to develop with the aim of being used as supportive therapy until liver transplantation (bridge-to-transplant) or liver regeneration (bridge-to-recovery). The well-recognized devices are the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System™ (MARS™), the Single-Pass Albumin Dialysis system and the Fractionated Plasma Separation and Adsorption system (Prometheus™). In the following years, experimental works and early clinical applications were reported, and to date, many thousands of patients have already been treated with these devices. The ability of artificial liver support systems to replace the liver detoxification function, at least partially, has been proven, and the correction of various biochemical parameters has been demonstrated. However, the complex tasks of regulation and synthesis must be addressed through the use of bioartificial systems, which still face several developmental problems and very high production costs. Moreover, clinical data on improved survival are conflicting. This paper reviews the progress achieved and new data published on artificial liver support systems over the past decade and the prospects for these devices.