A prospective, randomized evaluation of prophylactic intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in high risk patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty. Second Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI-II) Trial Investigators

Impella - Current issues and future expectations for the percutaneous, microaxial flow left ventricular assist device

The importance of temporary mechanical circulatory support for treating acute heart failure with cardiogenic shock is increasingly recognized, and Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) has received particular attention in this regard. Impella is an axial flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) built into the tip of a catheter. It is inserted via a peripheral artery and implanted into the left ventricle. Although the morphology of Impella is different from a typical LVAD, it has similar actions and effects as an LVAD in terms of left ventricular drainage and aortic blood delivery. Impella increases mean arterial pressure (MAP) and systemic blood flow, thereby improving peripheral organ perfusion and promoting recovery from multiple organ failure. In addition, left ventricular unloading with increased MAP increases coronary perfusion and decreases myocardial oxygen demand, thereby promoting myocardial recovery. Impella is also useful as a mechanical vent of the left ventricle in patients supported with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Indications for Impella include emergency use for cardiogenic shock and non-emergent use during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and ventricular tachycardia ablation. Its intended uses for cardiogenic shock include bridge to recovery, durable device, heart transplantation, and heart surgery. Prophylactic use of Impella in high-risk patients undergoing open heart surgery to prevent postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock is also gaining attention. While there have been many case reports and retrospective studies on the benefits of Impella, there is little evidence based on sufficiently large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Currently, several RCTs are now ongoing, which are critical to determine when, for whom, and how these devices should be used. In this review, we summarize the principles, physiology, indications, and complications of the Impella support and discuss current issues and future expectations for the device.

A Novel Reperfusion Strategy for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective Case Series

BACKGROUND

Ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) remains a major problem in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We have developed a novel reperfusion strategy for PCI and named it "volume-controlled reperfusion (VCR)". The aim of the current study was to assess the safety and feasibility of VCR in patients with STEMI.

METHODS

Consecutive patients admitted to Beijing Chaoyang Hospital with STEMI were prospectively enrolled. The feasibility endpoint was procedural success. The safety endpoints included death from all causes, major vascular complications, and major adverse cardiac event (MACE), i.e., a composite of cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and heart failure.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were finally included. Procedural success was achieved in 28 (93.3%) patients. No patients died during the study and no major vascular complications or MACE occurred during hospitalization. With the exception of one patient (3.3%) who underwent TVR three months after discharge, no patient encountered death (0.0%), major vascular complications (0.0%), or and other MACEs (0.0%) during the median follow-up of 16 months.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the pilot study suggest that VCR has favorable feasibility and safety in patients with STEMI. Further larger randomized trials are required to evaluate the effectiveness of VCR in STEMI patients.

Joint British Societies' guideline on management of cardiac arrest in the cardiac catheter laboratory

More than 300 000 procedures are performed in cardiac catheter laboratories in the UK each year. The variety and complexity of percutaneous cardiovascular procedures have both increased substantially since the early days of invasive cardiology, when it was largely focused on elective coronary angiography and single chamber (right ventricular) permanent pacemaker implantation. Modern-day invasive cardiology encompasses primary percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac resynchronisation therapy, complex arrhythmia ablation and structural heart interventions. These procedures all carry the risk of cardiac arrest.We have developed evidence-based guidelines for the management of cardiac arrest in adult patients in the catheter laboratory. The guidelines include recommendations which were developed by collaboration between nine professional and patient societies that are involved in promoting high-quality care for patients with cardiovascular conditions. We present a set of protocols which use the skills of the whole catheter laboratory team and which are aimed at achieving the best possible outcomes for patients who suffer a cardiac arrest in this setting. We identified six roles and developed a treatment algorithm which should be adopted during cardiac arrest in the catheter laboratory. We recommend that all catheter laboratory staff undergo regular training for these emergency situations which they will inevitably face.

High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Native Coronary Arteries Without Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome Without Cardiogenic Shock

Widespread utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial, with a lack of randomized supporting evidence and associated risk of device-related complications. We investigated whether high-risk PCI of native coronary arteries without elective MCS in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is safe and feasible. We performed a single-center, retrospective analysis for ACS patients meeting American College of Cardiology high-risk criteria: unprotected left main disease, last remaining conduit, ejection fraction <35%, 3-vessel coronary artery disease, severe aortic stenosis, or severe mitral regurgitation. Patients with cardiogenic shock and those undergoing PCI of the bypass grafts were excluded. Major in-hospital and 30-day cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. From 2003 through 2018, 499 patients (847 lesions) with unstable angina pectoris (UAP), 1218 patients (1807 lesions) with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and 868 patients (1260 lesions) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) underwent high-risk PCI. Procedural success was achieved in 97.2% of UAP, 98.3% of NSTEMI, and 96.6% of STEMI patients. In-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality were as follows: UAP, 2%; NSTEMI, 2.1%; and STEMI 4.7%. Bailout intra-aortic balloon pump was required in 1.6% of UAP, 3.1% of NSTEMI, and 10.3% of STEMI patients. Major complications for UAP, NSTEMI, and STEMI were, respectively: target lesion revascularization (2.3%, 1.4%, and 1.5%), stroke or transient ischemic attack (0.8%, 0.6%, and 1.3%), acute renal failure (8.2%, 7.2%, and 10.2%), major bleeding (1.6%, 3.1%, and 8.5%). In conclusion, our results show that high-risk PCI without elective MCS is safe and feasible in most ACS patients, challenging professional societies' current recommendations. A randomized trial comparing unprotected versus protected high-risk PCI for non-shock ACS patients is warranted.

Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

Vascular complications associated with intraaortic balloon pump supported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and clinical outcomes from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society National PCI Database

INTRODUCTION

The impact of a vascular complication (VC) in the setting of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) supported PCI on clinical outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

Using data from the BCIS National PCI Database, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of a VC. Propensity scoring was used to quantify the association between a VC and outcomes.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2014, 9,970 PCIs in England and Wales were supported by IABP (1.6% of total PCI), with 224 femoral VCs (2.3%). Annualized rates of a VC reduced as the use of radial access for PCI increased. The independent predictors of a VC included a procedural complication (odds ratio [OR] 2.9, p < .001), female sex (OR 2.3, p < .001), PCI for stable angina (OR 3.47, p = .028), and use of a glycoprotein inhibitor (OR 1.46 [1.1:2.5], p = .04), with a lower likelihood of a VC when radial access was used for PCI (OR 0.48, p = .008). A VC was associated with a higher likelihood of transfusion (OR 5.7 [3.5:9.2], p < .0001), acute kidney injury (OR 2.6 [1.2:6.1], p = .027), and periprocedural MI (OR 3.2 [1.5:6.7], p = .002) but not with adjusted mortality at discharge (OR 1.2 [0.8:1.7], p = .394) or 12-months (OR 1.1 [0.76:1.56], p = .639). In sensitivity analyses, there was a trend towards higher mortality in patients experiencing a VC who underwent PCI for stable angina (OR 4.1 [1.0:16.4], p value for interaction .069). Discussion and Conclusions Although in-hospital morbidity was observed to be adversely affected by occurrence of a VC during IABP-supported PCI, in-hospital and 1-year survival were similar between groups.

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.

Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices

There has been a significant increase in the use of short-term percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) as acute circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and to provide haemodynamic support during interventional procedures, including high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. Although frequently considered together, pVADs differ in their haemodynamic effects, management, indications, insertion techniques, and monitoring requirements. This consensus document summarizes the views of an expert panel by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and appraises the value of short-term pVAD. It reviews the pathophysiological context and possible indications for pVAD in different clinical settings and provides guidance regarding the management of pVAD based on existing evidence and best current practice.

Short term outcomes of Impella in cardiogenic shock: A review and meta-analysis of observational studies

INTRODUCTION

The clinical impact of invasive hemodynamic support with Impella in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined.

METHOD

Only studies including patients treated with Impella in CS were selected. The primary endpoint was short term mortality, while secondary endpoints were major vascular complications and major bleeding.

RESULTS

17 studies and 3933 patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 61.9 (IQR 59.2-63.5) years, CS was mainly related to acute coronary syndrome (ACS): 79.6% (IQR 75.1-79.6). Thirty-day mortality was 47.8% (CI 43.7-52%). Based on metaregression analysis, the Impella 5.0 (point estimate -0.006, 95% CI -0.01 - - 0.02, p < 0.01) and the Impella CP (point estimate -0.007, 95% CI -0.01 - - 0.03, p < 0.01) devices were related to a higher survival rate, whereas the Impella 2.5 was not. Furthermore, a correlation with reduced mortality was found when Impella was initiated in CS not complicated by cardiac arrest (CA), and before revascularization, (point estimate 0.01, 95% CI 0.002-0.02, p < 0.01 and point estimate -0.02, 95% CI 0.023-0.01, p < 0.001 respectively). The vascular complication and major bleeding rate were 7.4% (95% CI 5.6-9.6%) and 15.2% (95% CI 10.7-21%) respectively, and were associated with older age and comorbidities, while the implantation of an Impella CP/2.5 L was associated with fewer complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the use of Impella the 30 day mortality of CS still remains high. Our data suggest that the use of an Impella CP, initiation of Impella prior to PCI and in patients without cardiac arrest was correlated with outcome improvements.

Cerebral Infarction Observed on Brain MRI in Unconscious Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Cumulative evidence regarding the use of brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting prognosis of unconscious out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors treated with targeted temperature management (TTM) is available. Theoretically, these patients are at a high risk of developing cerebral infarction. However, there is a paucity of reports regarding the characteristics of cerebral infarction in this population. Thus, we performed a pilot study to identify the characteristics and risk factors of cerebral infarction and to evaluate whether this infarction is associated with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective, registry-based cohort study was conducted at Severance Hospital, a tertiary center. Unconscious OHCA survivors were registered and treated with TTM between September 2011 and December 2015. We included patients who underwent brain MRI in the first week after the return of spontaneous circulation. We excluded patients who underwent any endovascular interventions to focus on "procedure-unrelated" cerebral infarctions. We assessed hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) and procedure-unrelated cerebral infarction separately on MRI. Patients were categorized into the following groups based on MRI findings: HIE (-)/infarction (-), infarction-only, and HIE (+) groups. Conventional vascular risk factors showing p < 0.05 in univariate analyses were entered into multivariate logistic regression. We also evaluated if the presence of this procedure-unrelated cerebral infarction lesion or HIE was associated with a poor clinical outcome at discharge, defined as a cerebral performance category of 3-5.

RESULTS

Among 71 unconscious OHCA survivors who completed TTM, underwent MRI, and who did not undergo endovascular interventions, 14 (19.7%) patients had procedure-unrelated cerebral infarction based on MRI. Advancing age [odds ratio (OR) 1.11] and atrial fibrillation (OR 5.78) were independently associated with the occurrence of procedure-unrelated cerebral infarction (both p < 0.05). There were more patients with poor clinical outcomes at discharge in the HIE (+) group (88.1%) than in the infarction-only (30.0%) or HIE (-)/infarction (-) group (15.8%) (p < 0.001). HIE (+) (OR 38.69, p < 0.001) was independently associated with poor clinical outcomes at discharge, whereas infarction-only was not (p > 0.05), compared to HIE (-)/infarction (-).

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, procedure-unrelated cerebral infarction was noted in approximately one-fifth of unconscious OHCA survivors who were treated with TTM and underwent MRI. Older age and atrial fibrillation might be associated with the occurrence of procedure-unrelated cerebral infarction, and cerebral infarction was not considered to be associated with clinical outcomes at discharge. Considering that the strict exclusion criteria in this pilot study resulted in a highly selected sample with a relatively small size, further work is needed to verify our findings.

Comparison of the prognosis for different onset stage of cardiogenic shock secondary to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Objectives

The study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of different onset stage of cardiogenic shock (CS) in the patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Methods

Total 675 STEMI patients who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) from November 2010 to December 2017 in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital were enrolled. According to the onset time of CS, the cohort was divided into three groups: Non-CS group, CS on admission group and Developed CS group. The short-term (30 days), middle-term (12 months) and long-term (80 months) outcomes were analyzed. COX proportional hazard models were established for identification of the predictors.

Results

The all cause death, cardiac death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days were similar among the three groups. The incidence of MACE in the CS on admission group was significantly higher than the other two groups at 12 months. As to the long-term outcomes, the CS on admission group had lower survival rate than the other two groups. The Develop CS group had lower survival rate than Non-CS group numerically with a trend towards statistical significance. The incidence of cardiac death in the Non-CS group was the lowest. The incidence of MACE in the CS on admission group was much higher compared with the other two groups. After multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of all cause death included age, male sex, prior stroke and LVEF. The independent predictors of cardiac death included age, male sex, prior stroke, LVEF, CS on admission and developed CS. The independent predictors of MACE included age, prior stroke, LVEF, multivessel lesions, post-PCI TIMI grade 1 and CS on admission.

Conclusions

The long-term outcomes of CS on admission group were the worst of all. The outcomes of Developed CS group laid between the other two groups. The consequences highlighted the importance of prevention for CS developing in the STEMI patients during hospitalization.

Complications of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: An Appraisal of Contemporary Literature

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with hemodynamic compromise and end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac etiology. In addition to vasoactive medications, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices offer the ability to support the hemodynamics and prevent acute organ failure. Despite the wide array of available MCS devices for CS, there are limited data on the complications from these devices. In this review, we seek to summarize the complications of MCS devices in the contemporary era. Using a systems-based approach, this review covers domains of hematological, neurological, vascular, infectious, mechanical, and miscellaneous complications. These data are intended to provide a balanced narrative and aid in risk-benefit decision-making in this acutely ill population.

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (pMCSDs) are increasingly used on the assumption (but without solid proof) that their use will improve prognosis. A meta-analysis was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the benefits of pMCSDs in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (hr-PCI).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, and other databases to identify eligible studies. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality rates, reinfarction, and other adverse events using a random effect model.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. In the pooled analysis, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.61-1.66; RR 0.88 95% CI 0.66-1.17), reinfarction (RR 0.89 95% CI 0.69-1.14), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.47-6.42), heart failure (HF) (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.11-2.66), repeat revascularization (RR 0.73 95% CI 0.25-2.10), embolization (RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13-71.61), or arrhythmia (RR 2.81 95% CI 0.30-26.11). Compared with IABP, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 0.96 95% CI 0.71-1.29; RR 1.23 95% CI 0.88-1.72), reinfarction (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.68-1.42), stroke/TIA (RR 0.45 95% CI 0.1-1.95), acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.38-1.80), or arrhythmia (RR 1.52 95% CI 0.71-3.27), but LVADs were associated with a decrease in repeat revascularization (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.83). However, LVADs significantly increased the risk of bleeding compared with IABP (RR 2.85 95% CI 1.72-4.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither LVADs nor IABP improves short or long-term survival in hr-PCI patients. LVADs are more likely to reduce repeat revascularization after PCI, but to increase the risk of bleeding events than IABP.

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump inserted in acute myocardial infarction patients without cardiogenic shock undergoing surgical coronary revascularization

OBJECTIVES

The benefit of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump implantation in high-risk cardiac surgery patients is still debated. The role of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump insertion in acute myocardial infarction patients without cardiogenic shock undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of the preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump insertion in those patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

A total of 421 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients without cardiogenic shock who underwent isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were enrolled in this retrospective observational propensity score-matched analysis study. Patients who received intra-aortic balloon pump before off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (the intra-aortic balloon pump group, n = 157) were compared with those who had not (control group, n = 264). The 30-day postoperative survival, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital length of stay were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 99 pairs of patients were matched. The preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump did not show a 30-day postoperative survival benefit compared with the control group (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-4.2; p = 0.92). Patients with preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump were more likely to have shorter postoperative lengths of stay (8 (6-11) days vs. 10 (6-15) days, p = 0.02) and decreased total days in the hospital (median days: 18.2 vs. 21.8, p = 0.02) compared to patients without balloon pumps.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump insertion in acute myocardial infarction patients without cardiogenic shock undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting improved convalescence as shown by significantly shorter postoperative lengths of hospital stay.

Risk Stratification in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Practical Walkthrough in the Landscape of Prognostic Risk Models

Although a combination of multiple strategies to prevent and treat coronary artery disease (CAD) has led to a relative reduction in cardiovascular mortality over recent decades, CAD remains the greatest cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A variety of individual factors and circumstances other than clinical presentation and treatment type contribute to determining the outcome of CAD. It is increasingly understood that personalised medicine, by taking these factors into account, achieves better results than "one-size-fitsall" approaches. In recent years, the multiplication of risk scoring systems for CAD has generated some degree of uncertainty regarding whether, when and how predictive models should be adopted when making clinical decisions. Against this background, this article reviews the most accepted risk models for patients with evidence of CAD to provide practical guidance within the current landscape of tools developed for prognostic risk stratification.

Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device

BACKGROUND

The Impella percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) rapidly deploys mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). We present findings from a quality improvement (IQ) registry for US patients with AMICS who received Impella devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2009 to December 2016, 46,949 patients from 1010US hospitals were entered into the IQ registry; of these, 15,259 had AMICS. Limited de-identified patient information, product performance, and survival to explantation were recorded. Of those with AMICS, 51% survived to explantation of PVAD. There was a significant difference between survival at explantation with quintile volume at hospitals (range: 0-100%; 30% survival rate in lowest quintile vs. 76% in top quintile; P<.0001). Use of the Impella device as first-line treatment pre-PCI was associated with a 59% survival rate, compared with 52% when used as a salvage strategy (P<.001). The survival rate among those who received hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheters was 63% as compared with 49% in those who did not (P<.0001). Overall institutional Impella volume was related to survival (56% survival at sites with >7/year vs. 51% at sites with ≤1; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this early clinical experience with Impella support for AMICS, wide variation in outcomes existed across centers. Survival was higher when Impella was used as first support strategy, when invasive hemodynamic monitoring was used, and at centers with higher Impella implantation volume.

Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group

Background:

Cardiogenic shock remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We aimed to assess the current trends in cardiogenic shock management, looking specifically at the incidence, use of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy and outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods and results:

We undertook an observational cohort study of 21,210 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated between 2005–2015 at the eight Heart Attack Centres in London, UK. Patients’ details were recorded at the time of the procedure into local databases using the British Cardiac Intervention Society percutaneous coronary intervention dataset. There were 1890 patients who presented with cardiogenic shock. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 4.1 years (interquartile range: 2.2–5.8 years). Increasing rates of cardiogenic shock were seen over the course of the study with consistently high mortality rates of 45–70%. A total of 685 patients underwent intra-aortic balloon pump insertion during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock with decreasing rates over time. Those patients undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump therapy were younger, more likely to have poor left ventricular function and less likely to have had previous percutaneous coronary intervention compared to the control group. Procedural success rates were similar (86.0% vs 87.1%, p=0.292) although crude, in-hospital major adverse cardiac event rates were higher (43.8% vs 33.7%, p<0.0001) in patients undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump therapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significantly higher mortality rates in patients receiving intra-aortic balloon pump therapy (50.9% intra-aortic balloon pump vs 39.9% control, p<0.0001) during the follow-up period. After multivariate Cox analysis (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.62–1.89) and the use of propensity matching (hazard ratio: 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.68–1.45) intra-aortic balloon pump therapy was not associated with mortality.

Conclusion:

Cardiogenic shock treated by percutaneous coronary intervention is increasing in incidence and remains a condition associated with high mortality and limited treatment options. Intra-aortic balloon pump therapy was not associated with a long-term survival benefit in this cohort and may be associated with increased early morbidity.

The role of acute circulatory support in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

In the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, three primary treatment objectives include providing circulatory support, ventricular unloading, and restoring myocardial perfusion. In addition to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, each of these three objectives can be achieved with appropriate use of an acute mechanical circulatory support (AMCS) pump. Over the past decade, utilization of percutaneously-delivered AMCS devices including the Impella axial-flow catheter, TandemHeart left atrial-to-femoral artery bypass system, and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has grown exponentially. In this review, we will discuss the hemodynamic impact of each AMCS device and clinical data surrounding their use in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.

The effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pump for myocardial infarction in patients with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Conflicting reports on the efficacy of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) incited us to evaluate the utility of IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Methods

Randomized clinical trials comparing patients, who received IABP vs. control (no IABP) during PCI, were hand-searched from MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases using the terms “intra-aortic balloon pump, percutaneous coronary intervention, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome”. Mortality rate (30-day and 6-month mortality) was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcomes included 30-day bleeding rate, reinfarction rate, revascularization rate and stroke rate.

Results

Pooled results of the seven trials identified indicated that the 30-day and 6-month mortality rate were not significantly different between the IABP and control groups. However, in patients with MI, but without cardiogenic shock (CS), IABP was associated with lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR = 0.35, p = 0.015) and 6-month mortality (OR = 0.41, p = 0.020). The pooled results of 30-day bleeding rate was not significantly higher in patients with IABP than the control group, but for the patients with high risk PCI without CS, it was higher in patients with IABP than the control group (OR = 1.58, p = 0.009). The re-infarction, revascularization, and the stroke rate at 30 days of follow-up were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

The present results do not favor the clinical utility of IABP in patients suffering high-risk PCI without CS and AMI complicated with CS. However, in patients with AMI, but without CS, IABP may reduce the 30-day and 6-month mortality rate.

Percutaneous Mechanical Reperfusion During Acute Myocardial Infarction

The treatment of acute myocardial infarction has progressed from bedrest to mechanical, catheter-based reperfusion. The authors review the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a primary treatment for acute myocardial infarction and the use of adjunctive agents. The most recent American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the use of PCI in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) advocate the use of PCI as primary therapy at those centers in which the procedure can be performed within accepted standards. Because a majority of hospitals (80%) do not have the capability of performing primary PCI, most patients are treated with thrombolytic therapy. PCI should be considered in those patients treated with thrombolytic therapy who have persistent or recurrent ischemia and/or cardiogenic shock. For patients with non-ST elevation MI, the use of an invasive strategy (early angiography and PCI if needed) has recently shown to be beneficial. Although revascularization is the basis of the acute therapy of MI, additional pharmacologic therapy in the acute setting is now recognized as a key to favorable long-term outcome.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes after unplanned intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in the Counterpulsation to Reduce Infarct Size Pre-PCI Acute Myocardial Infarction trial

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) and regional systems of care, the development of cardiogenic shock is associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to better characterize the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent crossover to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABC) in the CRISP AMI trial.

METHODS

Patients with anterior STEMI were randomized to IABC before pPCI or pPCI alone. Infarct size and 6-month clinical outcomes were evaluated in patients both in the pPCI-alone group who did undergo crossover to IABC and those who did not undergo crossover to IABC.

RESULTS

Among 176 patients randomized to pPCI alone, 161 patients did not later receive IABC during the index hospitalization, and 15 patients (8.5%) underwent crossover and did receive unplanned IABC. Hypotension and/or cardiogenic shock precipitated crossover to IABC in 12 patients (80%). Patients who underwent crossover to IABC demonstrated lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures on admission. At 6 months, rates of death (26.7% vs 3.1%, P = .003), readmission for severe hypotension (53.3% vs 3.7%, P < .001), resuscitated cardiac arrest, and ventricular arrhythmia were higher in the group that did crossover to IABC. Crossover to IABC was not associated with increased infarct size.

CONCLUSIONS

The most significant predictor of crossover to IABC in the setting of anterior STEMI was relative hypotension at the time of hospital admission, and crossover to IABC in CRISP AMI was associated with significantly worse clinical outcomes.

The Effects of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps on Mortality in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Coronary Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Stenting Era

Background

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) have generally been used for patients undergoing high-risk mechanical coronary revascularization. However, there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether they can improve outcomes in reperfusion therapy patients, mainly by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). This study was designed to determine the difference between high-risk mechanical coronary revascularization with and without IABPs on mortality, by performing a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials of the current era.

Methods

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2015. Unpublished data were obtained from the investigators. Randomized clinical trials of IABP and non-IABP in high-risk coronary revascularization procedures (PCI or CABG) were included. In the case of PCI procedures, stents should be used in more than 80% of patients. Numbers of events at the short-term and long-term follow-up were extracted.

Results

A total of 12 randomized trials enrolling 2155 patients were included. IABPs did not significantly decrease short-term mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42–1.01), or long-term mortality (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.47–1.35), with low heterogeneity across the studies. The findings remained stable in patients with acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock. But in high-risk CABG patients, IABP was associated with reduced mortality (71 events in 846 patients; RR 0.40; 95%CI 0.25–0.67).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing high-risk coronary revascularization, IABP did not significantly decrease mortality. But high-risk CABG patients may be benefit from IABP. Rigorous criteria should be applied to the use of IABPs.

The outcomes of intra-aortic balloon pump usage in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 33 clinical trials and 18,889 patients

BACKGROUND

The effects of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) usage in patients with acute myocardial infarction remain controversial. This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of IABP usage in these patients.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and other internet sources were searched for relevant clinical trials. The primary efficacy endpoints (in-hospital, midterm, and long-term mortality) and secondary endpoints (reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, and new heart failure in the hospital) as well as safety endpoints (severe bleeding requiring blood transfusion and stroke in-hospital) were subsequently analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three clinical trials involving 18,889 patients were identified. The risk of long-term mortality in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction was significantly decreased following IABP use (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.91, P=0.010). Both in-hospital and midterm mortality did not differ significantly between the IABP use group and no IABP use group (in-hospital: OR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.59-1.28, P=0.479; midterm: OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.53-2.38, P=0.768). IABP insertion was not associated with the risk reduction of reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, or new heart failure. However, IABP use increased the risk of severe bleeding requiring blood transfusion (OR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.29-3.25, P=0.002) and stroke (OR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.04-2.82, P=0.035). In the thrombolytic therapy and cardiogenic shock subgroups, reduced mortality rates following IABP use were observed.

CONCLUSION

IABP insertion is associated with feasible benefits with respect to long-term survival rates in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction, particularly those suffering from cardiogenic shock and receiving thrombolytic therapy, but at the cost of higher incidence of severe bleeding and stroke.

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy is a widely used intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Guidelines, which previously strongly recommended it, have recently undergone substantial change.

OBJECTIVE

To assess IABP efficacy in acute myocardial infarction.

DATA SOURCES

Human studies found in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries through December 2014 and in reference lists of selected articles. Search strings were "myocardial infarction" or "acute coronary syndrome" and "intra-aortic balloon pump" or "counterpulsation."

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing use of IABP with no IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and risk of bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We conducted separate meta-analyses of the RCTs and observational studies. Data were quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Thirty-day mortality.

RESULTS

There were 12 eligible RCTs randomizing 2123 patients. In the RCTs, IABP use had no statistically significant effect on mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.74-1.24]), with no significant heterogeneity among trials (I2 = 0%; P = .52). This result was consistent when studies were stratified by the presence (OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.28]; P = .69, I2 = 0%) or absence (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.57-1.69]; P = .95, I2 = 17%) of cardiogenic shock. There were 15 eligible observational studies totaling 15 530 patients. Their results were mutually conflicting (heterogeneity I2 = 97%; P < .001), causing wide uncertainty in the summary estimate for the association with mortality (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.54-1.70]). A simple index of baseline risk marker imbalance in the observational studies appeared to explain much of the heterogeneity in the observational data (R2meta = 46.2%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Use of IABP was not found to improve mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction in the RCTs, regardless of whether patients had cardiogenic shock. The observational studies showed a variety of mutually contradictory associations between IABP therapy and mortality, much of which was explained by the differences between studies in the balance of risk factors between IABP and non-IABP groups.

Intra-aortic balloon pump may grant no benefit to improve the mortality of patients with acute myocardial infarction in short and long term: an updated meta-analysis

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been extensively used in clinical practice as a circulatory-assist device. However, current literature demonstrated significantly varied indications for IABP application and prognosis.The objective of the study was to assess the potential benefits or risks of IABP treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated with or without cardiogenic shock.MEDLINE and EMBASE database were systematically searched until November 2014, using the terms as follows: IABP, IABC (intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation), AMI, heart infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic heart disease, and acute coronary syndrome. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of IABP or non-IABP support in AMI with or without cardiogenic shock were included. Two researchers performed data extraction independently, and at the mean time, the risk of bias among those RCTs was also assessed.Of 3026 citations, 17 studies (n = 3226) met the inclusion criteria. There is no significant difference between IABP group and control group on the short-term mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.06; P = 0.214) and long-term mortality (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04; P = 0.155) in AMI patients with or without cardiogenic shock. These results were consistent when the analysis was performed on studies that only included patients with cardiogenic shock, both on short-term mortality (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08; P = 0.293) and long-term mortality (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.10; P = 0.492). Similar result was also observed in AMI patients without cardiogenic shock. Furthermore, the risks of hemorrhage (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.09-2.04; P = 0.013) and recurrent ischemia (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79; P = 0.002) were significantly higher in IABP group compared with control group.We did not observe substantial benefit from IABP application in reducing the short- and long-term mortality, while it might promote the risks of hemorrhage and recurrent ischemia. Therefore, IABP may be not an optimal therapy in AMI with or without cardiogenic shock until more elaborate classification is used for selecting appropriate patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Although there has been only limited evidence from randomised controlled trials, the previous guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) strongly recommended the use of the IABP in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations, non-randomised trials and registry data. The recent guidelines downgraded the recommendation based on a meta-analysis which could only include non-randomised trials showing conflicting results. Up to now, there have been no guideline recommendations and no actual meta-analysis including the results of the large randomised multicentre IABP-SHOCK II Trial which showed no survival benefit with IABP support. This systematic review is an update of the review published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate, in terms of efficacy and safety, the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were updated in October 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials on patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for six trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Seven eligible studies were identified from a total of 2314 references. One new study with 600 patients was added to the original review. Four trials compared IABP to standard treatment and three to other percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 790 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the updated meta-analysis: 406 patients were treated with IABP and 384 patients served as controls; 339 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with other LVAD. The HR for all-cause 30-day mortality of 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.19) provided no evidence for a survival benefit. Different non-fatal cardiovascular events were reported in five trials. During hospitalisation, 11 and 4 out of 364 patients from the intervention groups suffered from reinfarction or stroke, respectively. Altogether 5 out of 363 patients from the control group suffered from reinfarction or stroke. Reocclusion was treated with subsequent re-revascularization in 6 out of 352 patients from the intervention group and 13 out of 353 patients of the control group. The high incidence of complications such as moderate and severe bleeding or infection in the control groups has to be attributed to interventions with other LVAD. Possible reasons for bias were more frequent in small studies with high cross-over rates, early stopping and the inclusion of patients with IABP at randomisation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on some haemodynamic parameters. However, this did not result in survival benefits so there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.

The efficacy and safety of mechanical hemodynamic support in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with or without cardiogenic shock: Bayesian approach network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported conflicting results regarding efficacy of mechanical hemodynamic support using intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assisted device (pVAD) in patients undergoing high-risk PCI. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of mechanical hemodynamic support devices and medical therapy (MT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

RCTs comparing overall mortality of IABP versus MT or IABP versus pVAD in high-risk PCI populations were included. The primary endpoint was overall mortality, using the longest available follow-up in each study. This analysis included 2843 patients from 13 trials. In network meta-analysis, overall survival benefit was not significant with IABP (RR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.56-1.24) or pVAD (RR 0.95, 95% CrI 0.42-2.06), compared with MT. IABP or pVAD also did not show early survival benefit compared with MT. In terms of bleeding, pVAD was the worst (versus IABP: RR 29.4, 95% CrI 5.99-221.0; versus MT: RR 41.7, 95% CrI 8.19-330.0), which was mainly driven by the higher incidence of bleeding in the ECMO and TandemHeart, while IABP was worse than MT (RR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.01-2.08). The incidence of acute limb ischemia or vascular complication was not different between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, routine elective use of IABP or pVAD did not reduce mortality, while it increased bleeding, compared with MT in high-risk PCI population or even in the patients with cardiogenic shock. Thoughtful selection of appropriate patients and balancing the risk and benefit should be the prerequisites to the use of mechanical hemodynamic support devices.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in contemporary practice - where are we?

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) remains the most widely used form of mechanical circulatory support in current clinical practice. This article will review the current evidence to guide IABP use, focussing on large registry and prospective, randomised data, and seek to establish appropriate roles for the IABP in contemporary practice. Despite a paucity of clinical evidence, the IABP remains a useful clinical tool in selected settings, although its routine, up-front use in relatively unselected MI populations is not supported by data. Although current evidence no longer supports routine use in certain high-risk groups, further studies of appropriately selected high-risk patients may yet demonstrate benefit in patients with moderate-severe degrees of shock.

Current and future applications of the intra-aortic balloon pump

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been used for more than 40 years. Although recommended in a wide variety of clinical settings, most of these indications are not evidence-based. This review focuses on studies challenging these traditional indications and evaluates potentially new applications of intra-aortic counterpulsation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have failed to confirm an improvement in clinical outcomes conferred by the IABP in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. This issue is in need of further investigations. While conflicting results of several retrospective studies and meta-analyses have been published regarding the performance of the IABP in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions, it has recently been found to improve the long-term clinical outcomes of patients in whom it was implanted before the procedure. Small, single-center studies have reported the use of the IABP as a bridge to transplantation or candidacy for left-ventricular assist device implantation. The recently reported feasibility and safety of its insertion via the subclavian or axillary arteries will facilitate these applications.

SUMMARY

The revisiting of available data and the performance of new, thoughtfully designed trials should clarify the proper indications for the IABP.

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.

Temporal trends in the use of intraaortic balloon pump associated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States, 1998-2008

BACKGROUND

With conflicting evidence regarding the usefulness of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), reports of IABP use in the United States have been inconsistent. Our objective was to examine trends in IABP usage in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States and to evaluate the association of IABP use with mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational study using patient data obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 1998 to 2008. Patients undergoing any PCI (1,552,602 procedures) for a primary diagnosis of symptomatic coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome, including non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall use of IABP significantly decreased during the study period from 0.99% in 1998 to 0.36% in 2008 (univariate and multivariate P for trend < .0001). Patients who received IABP had substantially higher rates of shock compared with those who did not receive IABP (38.09% vs 0.70%; P < .0001), which was associated with markedly higher inhospital mortality rates (20.31% vs 0.72%; P < .0001). However, IABP use significantly decreased in patients with shock (36.5%-13.4%) and acute myocardial infarction (2.23%-0.84%) (univariate and multivariate P for trend for both < .0001). A temporal reduction in all-cause PCI-associated mortality from 1.1% in 1998 to 0.86% in 2008 (univariate and multivariate P for trend < .0001) was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of IABP associated with PCI significantly decreased between 1998 and 2008 in the United States, even among patients with acute myocardial infarction and shock.

Temporal trends in percutaneous coronary intervention--associated acute cerebrovascular accident (from the 1998 to 2008 Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database)

Acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery disease is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1998 to 2008 was used to identify 1,552,602 PCIs performed for acute coronary syndrome and coronary artery disease. We assessed temporal trends in the incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of CVA in a broad range of patients undergoing PCI. The overall incidence of CVA was 0.56% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.57). The incidence of CVA remained unchanged over the study period (adjusted p for trend=0.2271). The overall mortality rate in the CVA group was 10.76% (95% CI 10.1 to 11.4). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of CVA for in-hospital mortality was 7.74 (95% CI 7.00 to 8.57, p<0.0001); this remained high but decreased over the study period (adjusted p for trend<0.0001). Independent predictors of CVA included older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.03, p<0.0001), disorder of lipid metabolism (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.38, p<0.001), history of tobacco use (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.34, p=0.0002), coronary atherosclerosis (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.71, p<0.0001), and intra-aortic balloon pump use (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77, p=0.0073). A nomogram for predicting the probability of CVA achieved a concordance index of 0.73 and was well calibrated. In conclusion, the incidence of CVA associated with PCI has remained unchanged from 1998 to 2008 in face of improved equipment, techniques, and adjunctive pharmacology. The risk of CVA-associated in-hospital mortality is high; however, this risk has decreased over the study period.

Counterpulsation: a concept with a remarkable past, an established present and a challenging future

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), which is the main representative of the counterpulsation technique, has been an invaluable tool in cardiologists' and cardiac surgeons' armamentarium for approximately half a century. The IABP confers a wide variety of vaguely understood effects on cardiac physiology and mechano-energetics. Although, the recommendations for its use are multiple, most are not substantially evidence-based. Indicatively, the results of recently performed prospective studies have put IABP's utility in the setting of post-infarction cardiogenic shock into question. However, the particular issue remains open to further research. IABP support in high-risk patients undergoing PCI is associated with favorable long-term clinical outcome. In cardiac surgery, the use of IABP in cases of peri-operative low-output syndrome, refractory angina or ischemia-related mechanical complications is a usual, but poorly justified strategy. Anecdotal cases of treatment of incessant ventricular arrhythmias, reversal of right ventricular dysfunction and partial myocardial recovery have also been reported with its use. Converging data demonstrate the potential of safe long-term IABP support as a bridge to decision making or a bridge to transplantation modality in patients with heart failure. The feasibility of IABP insertion via other than the femoral artery sites enhances this potential. Despite the fact that several other counterpulsation devices have been developed and tested overtime none has managed to substitute the IABP, which continues to be most frequently used mechanical assist device.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation - basic principles and clinical evidence

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation has been the most widely used left ventricular assist device for nearly five decades. Due to diastolic inflation and systolic deflation, coronary blood flow is increased and afterload decreased translating into augmentation of oxygen supply and lowering of oxygen demand. However, IABP may be associated with serious complications, including major bleeding, stroke, local and systemic infections and vascular complications. These might counterbalance the potential beneficial hemodynamic effects. In clinical routine, IABP is mainly used in high-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction, especially when complicated by cardiogenic shock. Further, prophylactic IABP use is frequently performed in patients at high risk for hemodynamic instability undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Current evidence, however, does not fully support routine use of IABP in these settings. This review focuses on the basic principles of IABP and discusses current evidence.

Cardiogenic Shock: Background, Shock Trial/Registry, Evolving Data, Changing Survival, Best Medical Therapy

Cardiogenic shock remains associated with unacceptably high mortality, but recent improvements with early revascularization, continued support with pharmacologic agents, and use of an intra-aortic balloon pump have led to improvements in the rate of mortality. Timely intervention with cardiac surgery in patients with mechanical complications, 3-vessel disease, and left main disease is beneficial. Continued research and ever-improving understanding of this once deadly condition have helped further in improving prognosis. Cutting-edge technologies, such as myocyte cell implantation and the use of a cooling system, will help in pushing the boundaries farther.

Comparison of outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with versus without previous coronary artery bypass grafting (from the Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction [HORIZONS-AMI] trial)

The present substudy from the Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) trial assessed the outcomes and their relation to different antithrombotic regimens in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Of 3,599 patients with information regarding a history of CABG, 105 (2.9%) had previously undergone CABG. Of these 105 patients, 46 were randomized to heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor and 59 to bivalirudin. The patients with versus without previous CABG were less frequently triaged to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (83.8% vs 93.2%, p = 0.0002) and had a longer door-to-balloon time (median 1.9 vs 1.6 hours, p = 0.047), lower rates of final Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 2 to 3 in the intervened vessel (92.6% vs 97.8%, p = 0.007), and less frequent rates of complete or partial ST-segment resolution (66.3% vs 77.6%, p = 0.019). At 3 years, previous CABG was associated with a significantly greater incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (36.4% vs 21.4%, p <0.001) owing to greater rates of mortality (11.2% vs 6.7%, p = 0.08), reinfarction (11.6% vs 7.1%, p = 0.09), stroke (5.1% vs 1.8%, p = 0.013), and ischemic target vessel revascularization (23.6% vs 12.9%, p = 0.005). The outcomes did not differ significantly as a function of the antithrombotic regimen. On multivariate analysis, previous CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year ischemic stroke (hazard ratio 3.57, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 11.66). Intervention on the saphenous vein graft versus the native vessel predicted 3-year major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 2.69, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 6.19). In the HORIZONS-AMI trial, previous CABG was associated with a delay to mechanical reperfusion and lower rates of percutaneous coronary intervention and patency of the infarct related vessel along with worse clinical outcomes.

[Ischaemic cardiogenic shock. Where do we stand in 2012?]

With a stable frequency (about 5% of acute coronary syndromes) and a mortality of nearly 45%, cardiogenic shock (CS), especially when it occurs in the immediate waning of myocardial infarction, still represents a therapeutic challenge. In this review, will be detailed the actual epidemiologic data of CS, its physiopathology and the different modalities of treatments available to the interventional cardiologist, especially the coronary revascularisation and the percutaneous left ventricular assistance, whether by intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation or by more complex systems.