Right heart failure with left ventricular assist devices: Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative management strategies. A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Right heart failure (RHF) following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a common and potentially serious condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations with an unfavourable effect on patient outcomes. Clinical scores that predict the occurrence of right ventricular (RV) failure have included multiple clinical, biochemical, imaging and haemodynamic parameters. However, unless the right ventricle is overtly dysfunctional with end-organ involvement, prediction of RHF post-LVAD implantation is, in most cases, difficult and inaccurate. For these reasons optimization of RV function in every patient is a reasonable practice aiming at preparing the right ventricle for a new and challenging haemodynamic environment after LVAD implantation. To this end, the institution of diuretics, inotropes and even temporary mechanical circulatory support may improve RV function, thereby preparing it for a better adaptation post-LVAD implantation. Furthermore, meticulous management of patients during the perioperative and immediate postoperative period should facilitate identification of RV failure refractory to medication. When RHF occurs late during chronic LVAD support, this is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Careful monitoring of RV function and characterization of the origination deficit should therefore continue throughout the patient's entire follow-up. Despite the useful information provided by the echocardiogram with respect to RV function, right heart catheterization frequently offers additional support for the assessment and optimization of RV function in LVAD-supported patients. In any patient candidate for LVAD therapy, evaluation and treatment of RV function and failure should be assessed in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner.

Innovative Device-Based Strategies for Managing Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a major cause of hospitalizations in older adults, leading to high mortality, morbidity, and healthcare costs. To address the persistent poor outcomes in ADHF, novel device-based approaches targeting specific pathophysiological mechanisms are urgently needed. The recently introduced DRI2P2S classification categorizes these innovative therapies based on their mechanisms. Devices include dilators (increasing venous capacitance), removers (directly removing sodium and water), inotropes (enhancing left ventricular contractility), interstitials (accelerating lymph removal), pushers (increasing renal arterial pressure), pullers (decreasing renal venous pressure), and selective drippers (selective intrarenal drug infusion). Some are tailored for chronic HF, while others focus on the acute setting. Most devices are in early development, necessitating further research to understand mechanisms, assess clinical effectiveness, and ensure safety before routine use in ADHF management. Exploring these innovative device-based strategies may lead to improved outcomes and revolutionize HF treatment in the future.

Impact of Temporary Preoperative Mechanical Support on Heart Transplant Outcomes

We sought to assess the impact of temporary preoperative mechanical circulatory support (TPMCS) on heart transplantation outcomes. A total of 4,060 adult heart transplants from June 1, 2006, to December 31, 2019, were identified in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database as having TPMCS. Recipients were divided into groups based on their type of TPMCS: intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), temporary ventricular assist device (VAD), biventricular assist device (BIVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Perioperative outcomes and survival were compared among groups. Recipients with IABP were associated with older age, a smoking history, and a significantly shorter wait list time ( p < 0.01). Recipients with ECMO had a significantly increased in-hospital mortality as well as an increased incidence of dialysis ( p < 0.01). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed worse 1 and 5 year survival for recipients with ECMO. Cox model demonstrated a significantly increased risk of mortality with BIVAD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57; p < 0.01) and ECMO (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.03; p < 0.01). While patients with IABP have a survival comparable to patients without TPMCS or durable left VAD, outcomes for BIVADs and ECMO are not as favorable. Transplantation centers must continue to make careful choices about the type of TPMCS utilized before heart transplant.

Prognostic implications of inactive status in highest urgency categories among heart transplantation recipients in the new donor heart allocation system

BACKGROUND

Patients on the waiting list for heart transplantation (HT) can become inactive or made status seven because of medical reasons, such adverse events, complications, or psychosocial circumstances. If the condition that caused the inactivation is resolved, patients are re- activated. Information about the prognostic implications of Status 7 in the new donor heart allocation system has not been described. To bridge this knowledge gap, we performed an analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry.

METHODS

Data on adult patients who underwent HT between October 18th, 2018 and October 2021, were queried from the UNOS registry. The main outcomes were post- transplant all-cause mortality, 1-year all-cause mortality and treated acute rejection. Since re-transplantation is a competing event for all-cause mortality, we performed competing risk survival analysis and reported sub distribution hazard ratios (SHR) from the Fine and Gray model to examine the relationship between inactive status and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 5267 adult patients underwent HT and were previously listed as Status 1 or Status 2 in the new allocation system. We identified 946 HT recipients temporarily inactivated while on HT list (18%). The number of temporarily inactive patients remained stable since the implementation of the new donor allocation system (p = .37). Approximately, two-thirds of temporarily inactive patients (65.9%) were inactivated for being too sick, whereas other frequent justifications for inactivity included left ventricular assist device implantation (7.8%) and insurance related issues (4.8%). Temporarily inactive HT recipients were more likely to be African Americans, males, have a higher body mass index (BMI) and significantly longer waiting time (391.6 ± 600 vs. 72.3 ± 223 days, p < .001) compared with never inactivated patients. In the unadjusted analyses 30-day mortality did not differ between groups, but both 1-year and overall all-cause mortality was significantly higher in temporarily inactive patients (1-year: SHR: 1.3; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.03, 1.64; p = .028, overall mortality SHR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.64; p = .014). After adjustment for donor and recipient characteristics, a trend towards higher 1-year and overall mortality remained (1-year: SHR 1.32; 95% CI .99, 1.76, p = .006, overall mortality SHR: 1.29; 95% CI: .98-1.68, p = .065). No differences in treated acute allograft rejection at 1 year were found between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary inactive status while waiting for HT occurs in approximately one in five HT recipients listed in higher urgency categories after the implementation of the new allocation system. A signal of adverse long-term outcomes was found, and this could be explained by differences in recipient characteristics. Further research is required to elucidate pathways involved and possible implications for clinical practice.

Impact of structured physical therapy protocol among heart transplant recipients while on intra-aortic balloon pump in the pretransplant period

BACKGROUND

Use of prolonged femoral intra-aortic balloon pump support limits the mobility of patients awaiting heart transplant. We assessed the safety and outcomes of a structured, tilting physical therapy protocol in patients supported by intra-aortic balloon pumps while awaiting transplant.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed five years of transplant patients. Eighteen patients received femoral intra-aortic balloon support, a heart transplant, and met all eligibility criteria. We compared complications and outcomes between patients who received the structured, tilting physical therapy (Protocol Group) and those that received standard of care (Control Group).

RESULTS

Complications were not significantly different between groups. The majority of the Protocol Group were discharged to home (10/12), while half (3/6) of the Control Group were discharged to a rehabilitation facility. Post-transplant length of stay was significantly less in the Protocol Group (median 16 vs. 28 days, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite the small number analyzed, the data indicates that the structured, tilting physical therapy protocol led to a significantly reduced length of stay post-transplantation. Importantly, use of the protocol did not result in access site complications, thrombosis, or arrhythmias in the majority of the patients.

Clinical outcomes of grafted vs. percutaneous axillary intra-aortic balloon pump support as a bridge to transplantation: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to investigate the early and late outcomes of axillary intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation as a bridge to heart transplantation, comparing the grafted technique with the percutaneous technique.

METHODS

Between July 2009 and January 2020, 163 patients underwent an axillary IABP insertion as a bridge to heart transplantation. Among them, 97 patients underwent axillary IABP implantation through a graft sutured onto the axillary artery (Group A) and 66 patients underwent percutaneously (Group B). Propensity matching identified 53 matched pairs for analysis (C-statistics 0.741). The primary outcomes of interest included IABP-related complications, success rate of a bridge to transplantation, in-hospital mortality, and late survival.

RESULTS

In the propensity-score matched cohort, there were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The operation time was significantly longer in Group A than in Group B (141.5 ± 38.3 min vs 42.7 ± 19.3 min, p < 0.01). The complication rates including stroke, re-exploration for bleeding, and aortic event were not significantly different between Group A and B. However, Group A required more transfusion and re-exploration for bleeding. The success rate of a bridge to transplantation was similar between Group A (47/53, 88.7%) and Group B (47/53, 88.7%). There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality and late survival between two groups.

CONCLUSION

In the propensity score matching analysis, there were not any significant differences between the two groups in IABP-related complications, in-hospital mortality, and late survival. The percutaneous technique provided a shorter operation time and less requirement of transfusion and re-exploration for bleeding compared to the grafted technique. The percutaneous technique might be favorable when feasible.

Clinical profile and in-hospital outcome of patients supported by intra-aortic balloon pump in the clinical setting of cardiogenic shock

Background

Despite controversial evidences, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is still the most widely used temporary mechanical support device in cardiogenic shock (CS), as a bridge to recovery or to more invasive mechanical supports/heart transplantation.

Methods

We analyzed retrospectively data of all patients receiving IABP for CS from 2009 to 2018 in a referral centre for advanced heart failure and heart transplantation; we included CS following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and other CS etiologies different from ACS. We excluded patients in which IABP was implanted as a support following cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery in patients with severe chronic heart failure, or in elective high risk or complicated Cath Lab procedures.We focused on in-hospital outcomes (including death, recovery, heart transplantation, LVAD) and IABP complications.

Results

403 patients received IABP, 303 (75.2%) following ACS and 100 (24.8%) in non-ACS CS. Non-ACS patients were younger (59 ± 18.3 vs 73.1 ± 12.6 years, p < 0.001), had lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (25% [18-35] vs 38% [25-45], p < 0.001). In patients with non-ACS etiologies IABP was more frequently a bridge to heart transplantation [20% (n = 20) vs 0.3% (n = 1), P < 0.001] or LVAD [4% (n = 4) vs 0.6% (n = 2), P = 0.055], while ACS patients were more frequently discharged without transplantation/LVAD [65.7% (n = 199) vs 33% (n = 33), P < 0.001]. Non-ACS patients showed higher in-hospital mortality [46% (n = 46) vs 33.9% (n = 103), P = 0.042]. Post-transplant/LVAD outcome in non-ACS subgroup was favorable (21 out of 24 patients were discharged). Serious IABP-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (5.2%). Ischemic/hemorrhagic complications, infections and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with longer IABP stay.

Conclusions

Despite therapy including percutaneous circulatory support, mortality in CS is still high. In our experience, in the clinical setting of refractory CS an IABP support represents a relatively safe circulatory support, associated with a low rate of serious complications in complex clinical scenarios.

The impact of changes in renal function during waitlist time on outcomes after heart transplantation

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study evaluated the impact of changes in renal function during the waitlist period on posttransplant outcomes of orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT).

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was used to identify adult patients undergoing isolated OHT from 2010 to 2020. Patients were stratified by whether their National Kidney Foundation chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage improved, worsened, or remained unchanged between listing and transplantation. Univariate analysis and multivariable Cox regression were conducted to determine whether a change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or change in CKD stage predicted 1-year mortality after OHT.

RESULTS

Of 22,746 patients, the majority of patients remained in the same CKD stage (59.6%), and the frequencies of patients progressing to improved (19.3%) and worsened (21.1%) CKD stages were similar. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was associated with improved CKD stage and durable MCS with worsened CKD stage (p < .001). Post-OHT dialysis was most common in patients with worsened CKD stage (13.2%) and least common in the improved cohort (9.4%) (p < .001). Kaplan-Meier unadjusted 1-year survival rates after OHT were similar between CKD change groups (log-rank p = .197). Multivariable analysis demonstrated no risk-adjusted effect of change in eGFR (p = .113) or change in CKD stage (p = .076) on 1-year mortality after OHT.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 20% of patients improve CKD stage and 20% worsen CKD stage between listing and OHT, with the remaining 60% having unchanged CKD stage. Worsening CKD stage predicts increased likelihood of post-OHT dialysis, but CKD stage change does not predict 1-year survival following OHT.

Ten-year, single center experience of ambulatory axillary intra-aortic balloon pump support for heart failure

BACKGROUND

The axillary intra-aortic balloon pump has an advantage over the femoral intra-aortic balloon pump in terms of mobility. While axillary intra-aortic balloon pump has been widely used recently as a mode of mechanical circulatory support, the number of reported cases is limited. The purpose of this study is to summarize our experience and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of axillary intra-aortic balloon pump support.

METHODS

Between July 2009 and July 2019, 241 patients underwent axillary intra-aortic balloon pump support for heart failure. The intended therapeutic goals were bridge to heart transplantation (n=146), left ventricular assist device (n=66), and recovery (n=29). Intra-aortic balloon pumps were inserted through a graft sutured onto the axillary artery in 142 patients (58.9%) and percutaneously in 99 patients (41.1%). It was placed from the right axillary artery in 147 patients (61.0%) and left in 94 patients (39.0%). Primary outcome measures of interest included achievement of intended therapeutic goal, hemodynamic data, ambulatory data, intra-aortic balloon pump-related death, and complications.

RESULTS

Ambulation was possible in 217 patients (90.0%) during support. Hemodynamic parameters improved significantly after axillary intra-aortic balloon pump support. In total, 13 patients (5.4%) died and 10 patients (4.1%) required escalation of mechanical support. There were no deaths directly attributable to intra-aortic balloon pumps. Intra-aortic balloon pump-related stroke occurred in 6 patients (2.5%). Overall, 86.7% were successfully bridged to intended therapy (transplantation 90.4%, left ventricular assist device 90.9%, and recovery 58.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Axillary intra-aortic balloon pumps allow most patients to ambulate during support, improve hemodynamics, and lead to the intended goals successfully.

Intra-aortic balloon pump for acute-on-chronic heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock

The Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is widely implanted as temporary mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock (CS). However, its use is declining following the results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial, which failed to show a clinical benefit of IABP in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) related CS. Acute-on-chronic heart failure has become an increasingly recognized, distinct etiology of CS (HF-CS). The pathophysiology of HF-CS differs from ACS-CS, as it typically represents the progression from a state of congestion (with relatively preserved cardiac output) to a low output state with hypoperfusion. The IABP is a "volume displacement pump" that promotes forward flow from a high-capacitance reservoir to low-capacitance vessels, improving peripheral perfusion and decreasing left ventricular afterload in the setting of high filling pressures. The IABP can improve ventricular-vascular coupling and, therefore, myocardial energetics. Additionally, many HF-CS patients are candidates for cardiac replacement therapies (left ventricular assist device or heart transplantation), and, therefore, may benefit from a "bridge" strategy that stabilizes the hemodynamics and end-organ function in preparation for more durable therapies. Notably, the new United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system has recently prioritized patients on IABP support. This review describes the role of IABP for the treatment of HF-CS. It also briefly discusses new strategies for vascular access as well as a fully implantable versions for a longer duration of support.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Hypoperfusion: From Pathophysiology to Clinical Practice

Trials on intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in cardiogenic shock related to acute myocardial infarction have shown disappointing results. The role of IABP in cardiogenic shock treatment remains unclear, and new (potentially more potent) mechanical circulatory supports with arguably larger device profile are emerging. A reappraisal of the physiological premises of intra-aortic counterpulsation may underpin the rationale to maintain IABP as a valuable therapeutic option for patients with acute decompensated heart failure and tissue hypoperfusion. Several pathophysiological features differ between myocardial infarction- and acute decompensated heart failure-related hypoperfusion, encompassing cardiogenic shock severity, filling status, systemic vascular resistances rise, and adaptation to chronic (if preexisting) left ventricular dysfunction. IABP combines a more substantial effect on left ventricular afterload with a modest increase in cardiac output and would therefore be most suitable in clinical scenarios characterized by a disproportionate increase in afterload without profound hemodynamic compromise. The acute decompensated heart failure syndrome is characterized by exquisite afterload-sensitivity of cardiac output and may be an ideal setting for counterpulsation. Several hemodynamic variables have been shown to predict response to IABP within this scenario, potentially guiding appropriate patient selection. Finally, acute decompensated heart failure with hypoperfusion may frequently represent an end stage in the heart failure history: IABP may provide sufficient hemodynamic support and prompt end-organ function recovery in view of more definitive heart replacement therapies while preserving ambulation when used with a transaxillary approach.

Safety and Feasibility of an Early Mobilization Protocol for Patients with Femoral Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps as Bridge to Heart Transplant

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) can be used to provide hemodynamic support in patients with end-stage heart failure as a bridge to transplantation (BTT). The IABP is commonly inserted via the common femoral artery, which can limit patients' mobility. The Ramsey protocol, developed by a critical care physical therapist, allows patients with femoral IABPs to ambulate with the assistance of a tilt table. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of a modified Ramsey protocol for early mobilization of patients with femoral IABPs as BTT. This is a retrospective single-center review of patients with femoral IABPs as BTT using a tilt table protocol from May 2019 to May 2020. Primary outcomes were time to successful ambulation, number of successful ambulation events, and ambulation-associated adverse events, including IABP augmentation, waveform, positioning changes, and vascular complications at the insertion site. Twenty-four patients (mean age 55 ± 16 years) underwent femoral IABP insertion as BTT and were mobilized following our protocol. Nineteen patients (79.2%) successfully ambulated with a median of three sessions (interquartile range, 2-4) per patient. The median time from IABP insertion to ambulation was 3 days (interquartile range, 2-5). Twenty-one patients underwent heart transplantation, of which all 19 who ambulated were successfully bridged to transplantation. Early mobilization in select patients with femoral IABPs can be performed safely and successfully, avoiding the deleterious effects of bed rest that have been historically seen in this patient population.

Mechanical Support in Early Cardiogenic Shock: What Is the Role of Intra-aortic Balloon Counterpulsation?

Purpose of Review

We aim to summarize recent insights and provide an up-to-date overview on the role of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation in cardiogenic shock (CS).

Recent Findings

In the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) of patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMICS), IABP did not lower mortality. However, recent data suggest a role for IABP in patients who have persistent ischemia after revascularization. Moreover, in the growing population of CS not caused by acute coronary syndrome (ACS), multiple retrospective studies and one small RCT report on significant hemodynamic improvement following (early) initiation of IABP support, which allowed bridging of most patients to recovery or definitive therapies like heart transplant or a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

Summary

Routine use of IABP in patients with AMICS is not recommended, but many patients with CS either from ischemic or non-ischemic cause may benefit from IABP at least for hemodynamic improvement in the short term. There is a need for a larger RCT regarding the role of IABP in selected patients with ACS, as well as in patients with non-ACS CS.

Currently Available Options for Mechanical Circulatory Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex condition with a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices were developed to support patients with CS in cases refractory to treatment with vasoactive medications. Current devices include intra-aortic balloon pumps, intravascular microaxial pumps, percutaneous LVAD, percutaneous RVAD, and VA ECMO. Data from limited observational studies and clinical trials show a clear difference in the level of hemodynamic support offered by each device. However, at this point, there are insufficient clinical trial data to guide MCS selection and, until ongoing clinical trials are completed, use of the right device for the right patient depends largely on clinical judgment.

Outcomes of Ambulatory Axillary Intraaortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation

BACKGROUND

The axillary intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used in selected patients for circulatory support as a bridge to heart transplantation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of axillary intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) support for heart transplant candidates.

METHODS

The study investigators collected data on 133 patients who underwent axillary IABP support as a bridge to transplantation from July 2009 to April 2019. Of these patients, 94 (70.7%) underwent IABP insertion with surgical axillary grafts, and 39 (29.3%) underwent percutaneous IABP insertion. The outcomes of interest included ambulatory data, IABP-related complications, and successful heart transplantation with this type of support.

RESULTS

The overall preoperative ejection fraction was 20.3% ± 8.0%. The median duration of axillary IABP support was 21days, with 131patients (98.5%) mobilizing with the device. Hemodynamic variables significantly improved after the axillary IABP support was placed. Overall, 122 patients (91.7%) were successfully bridged to heart transplantation. Six patients (4.5%) required escalation to further mechanical support. Two patients (1.5%) died while awaiting transplantation. Four patients (3.0%) experienced a stroke during axillary IABP support (3 before transplantation and1 after transplantation). Two of the 3 patients with a stroke diagnosis before transplantation recovered and eventually underwent heart transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

With axillary IABP support, most patients were able to ambulate and undergo physical rehabilitation while waiting for heart transplantation. This study demonstrates that axillary IABP results in a high success rate of bridge to transplantation and a low number of complications. Thus, an ambulatory axillary IABP provided efficient and safe support for selected patients as a bridge to heart transplantation.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Bridging to Heart Transplantation: Impact of the 2018 Allocation Change

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the impact of the 2018 allocation policy change on outcomes of orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) in patients bridged with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs).

METHODS

Adult (≥18 years) patients undergoing OHT between 2013 and 2019 who were bridged with an IABP were stratified based on temporal relation to the policy change. Univariate analysis was used to compare baseline characteristics and postoperative outcomes. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate risk-adjusted predictors of post-transplant mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1342 (8.6%) OHT patients were bridged with an IABP during the study period. Rates of bridging with IABP to OHT increased significantly after the policy change (7.0% versus 24.9%, P<0.001). The mean recipient age was 54.1±12.1 years with 981 (73.1%) patients being male. Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups whereas post-policy change patients spent fewer days on the waitlist (15 versus 35 days, P<0.001), had longer ischemic times (3.5 versus 3.0 hours, P<0.001), and received organs from a greater distance (301 versus 105 miles, P<0.001). By multivariable analysis, days on the waitlist (for every 30 days; odds ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 1.00-1.02], P=0.031) and diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.16-3.02], P=0.011) emerged as significant predictors of post-transplant mortality. After the policy change, waitlisted patients requiring IABP support were more likely to survive to transplant (76.4 versus 89.8%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

IABP utilization has increased over 3-fold since the 2018 policy change with improved waitlist outcomes and comparable post-OHT survival. Thus, bridging patients to OHT with IABPs appears to be an effective strategy in the current era.

Local hemodynamic analysis of the C-Pulse Device by 3D fluid-structure interaction simulation

Background: C-Pulse is a new, nonblood contacting device based on the concept of counter-pulsation that is designed for long-term implantation. However, there is a lack of comprehensive investigation of the pressure and velocity fields under the action of C-Pulse. Aim: In this paper, we aim to conduct a numerical simulation of the underlying mechanism of the device in order to analyze its performance and related undesirable issues. Materials & methods: A 3D finite element model is utilized to simulate the mechanism of the blood pumping. Results & conclusion: The simulation well reproduced the essential characteristics of the C-Pulse. Preliminary results were in a reasonable range while a couple of irregular flow patterns were identified.

Waitlist and post-transplant outcomes in patients listed with intra-aortic balloon pump for heart transplant: United Network for Organ Sharing registry

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pump as bridge-to-transplant (BTT) has been used successfully in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. However, the waitlist mortality in this population is high and predictors of waitlist mortality in this population are not known. We sought to identify predictors for waitlist mortality in patients listed with intra-aortic balloon pump and risk factors for 1-year mortality after heart transplant in this population.

METHODS

We identified patients listed for heart transplantation with intra-aortic balloon pump in the United Network for Organ Sharing data set from 1994 to 2015. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify predictors of waitlist mortality and 1-year post-transplant mortality.

RESULTS

From 1945 patients listed with intra-aortic balloon pump, 67.5% (N = 1313) were alive at 1 year and waitlist mortality was 32.5% (N = 632). We found that higher pulmonary vascular resistance, need for inotropes, and need for mechanical ventilation were associated with higher waitlist mortality. Mechanical ventilation and dialysis prior to transplantation were important predictors of 1-year post-transplant mortality.

CONCLUSION

Predictors of mortality such as high pulmonary vascular resistance, dialysis dependence, inotrope, and ventilator dependence in patients listed with intra-aortic balloon pump can help us identify those patients that are at high risk of dying prior to a heart transplantation.

Perioperative Management of the Cardiac Transplant Recipient

Management of the cardiac transplant recipient includes careful titration of inotropes and vasopressors. Recipient pulmonary hypertension and ventilatory status must be optimized to prevent allograft right ventricular failure. Vasoplegia, coagulopathy, arrhythmias, and renal dysfunction also require careful management to achieve an optimal outcome. Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) can be an ominous problem after cardiac transplantation. Although mild degrees of PGD may be managed medically, mechanical circulatory support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or temporary ventricular assist devices may be required. Retransplantation may be necessary in some cases.

Management of advanced heart failure: a review

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) has become a global pandemic. Despite recent developments in both medical and device treatments, HF incidences continues to increase. The current definition of HF restricts itself to stages at which clinical symptoms are apparent. In advanced heart failure (AdHF), it is universally accepted that all patients are refractory to traditional therapies. As the number of HF patients increase, so does the need for additional treatments, with an increased proportion of patients requiring advanced therapies. Areas covered: This review discusses extensive evidence for the effect of medical treatment on HF, although the data on the effect on AdHF is scare. Authors review the relevant literature for treating AdHF patients. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory devices (MCD) have emerged as an alternative to heart transplantation and have been shown to enhance quality of life and reduce mortality therefore authors also review the current literature on the different MCD and technologies. Expert commentary: More patients will need advanced therapies, as the access to heart transplantation is limited by the number of available donors. AdHF patients should be identified timely since the window of opportunities for advanced therapy is narrow as their morbidity is progressive and survival is often short.

Use of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Heart Transplant in Spain: Results From the ASIS-TC Study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

In Spain, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been used frequently as a bridge to urgent heart transplant (HT). We sought to analyze the clinical outcomes of this strategy.

METHODS

We conducted a case-by-case, retrospective review of clinical records of 281 adult patients listed for urgent HT under IABP support in 16 Spanish institutions from 2010 to 2015. Pre- and post-transplant survival and adverse clinical events were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 194 (69%, 95%CI, 63.3-74.4) patients were transplanted and 20 (7.1%, 95%CI, 4.4-10.8) died during a mean period of IABP support of 10.9±9.7 days. IABP support was withdrawn before an organ became available in 32 (11.4%) patients. Thirty-five (12.5%, 95%CI, 8.8-16.9) patients transitioned from IABP to full-support mechanical devices. Mean urgent waiting list time increased from 5.9±6.3 days in 2010 to 15±11.7 days in 2015 (P=.001). Post-transplant survival rates at 30-days, 1-year, and 5-years were 88.1% (95%CI, 85.7-90.5), 76% (95%CI, 72.9-79.1), and 67.8% (95%CI, 63.7-71.9), respectively. The incidence rate of major adverse clinical outcomes-device dysfunction, stroke, bleeding or infection-during IABP support was 26 (95%CI, 20.6-32.4) episodes per 1000 patient-days. The incidence rate of IABP explantation due to complications was 7.2 (95%CI, 4.5-10.8) cases per 1000 patient-days.

CONCLUSIONS

In a setting of short waiting list times, IABP can be used to bridge candidates to urgent HT with acceptable postoperative results, but there were significant rates of adverse clinical events during support.

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock

Despite a high rate of early revascularization and use of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation therapy, the prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock has remained poor. In the hopes of improving outcomes, clinicians are increasingly turning to percutaneous left and right mechanical circulatory support devices. Until recently, the evidence base for these devices had consisted only of observational data, meta-analyses, and small feasibility trials. In this article, we describe the contemporary outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock, the hemodynamics of cardiogenic shock, and hemodynamic effects of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. We then use this discussion to provide clinicians with a useful framework for understanding when selecting between or while managing patients with a percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. We critically review the recently published data for and against the use of commercially available devices-the intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, the Impella system, the TandemHeart, and venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-and highlight gaps in our understanding. Given such gaps, a consensus multidisciplinary approach that combines expertise from interventional cardiologists, heart failure specialists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiac anesthesiologists may help pair the right patient with the right device at the right time.

The Axillary Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Recovery Allows Early Ambulation in Long-Term Use

We evaluated the feasibility, tolerability, and efficacy of a strategy for transaxillary artery intra-aortic balloon pump placement for extended mechanical circulatory support of patients with post-cardiotomy shock as a bridge to recovery. Patients requiring prolonged intra-aortic balloon pump support for postcardiotomy heart failure were identified. Intra-aortic balloon pump was tunneled through a 6-mm Dacron graft anastomosed to the right axillary artery. The intra-aortic balloon pump catheter is advanced under fluoroscopic guidance into the descending thoracic aorta. Three patients were transferred from outside facilities, requiring prolonged intra-aortic balloon pump support for postcardiotomy heart failure. Patients included a 54-year-old woman with occluded grafts and left ventricular thrombus after coronary artery bypass grafting, ejection fraction (EF) of 23.4% on dobutamine infusion, intra-aortic balloon pump support for 39 days, max daily ambulated distance of 1250 feet, and discharged home on day 51 on milrinone infusion; a 63-year-old man with kinked left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft (surgically repaired), multiple failed extubations requiring tracheostomy, EF of 15% on epinephrine and milrinone, intra-aortic balloon pump support for 43 days, max daily ambulated distance of 400 feet, and discharged home on day 54; and a 66-year-old man after redo coronary artery bypass grafting + carotid endarterectomy, with failure to wean off cardiopulmonary bypass requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator, EF of 20% on epinephrine and norepinephrine, intra-aortic balloon pump support for 41 days, max daily ambulated distance of 2800 feet, and discharged home on day 91. There were no infection, thromboembolic, cerebrovascular, bleeding, or intra-aortic balloon pump malpositioning/migration complications. We found that transaxillary artery intra-aortic balloon pump is well tolerated by patients and allows early ambulation and aggressive physical therapy in patients needing extended support. Duration of intra-aortic balloon pump support was up to 43 days with no complications.

First-Line Support by Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Non-Ischaemic Cardiogenic Shock in the Era of Modern Ventricular Assist Devices

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about circulatory support in cardiogenic shock (CS) from other causes than the acute coronary syndrome or after cardiotomy. We evaluated the effects of first-line intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support in this subpopulation of CS patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in 27 patients with CS from end-stage cardiomyopathy supported firstly by IABP in the years 2011-2016.

RESULTS

At 24 h, lactate decreased from 3.2 (2.1-6.8) to 1.8 (1.2-2.2) mmol/L (p < 0.001). Eighteen patients (67%) defined as IABP responders were successfully bridged to either recovery (n = 7), left ventricular assist device (n = 5), or heart transplantation (n = 6). IABP failed in 9 patients (non-responders, 33%) who either died (n = 7) or needed support by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 2). At 24 h of IABP support, urinary output was higher (2,660 [1,835-4,440] vs. 1,200 [649-2,385] mL; p = 0.02) and fluid balance more negative (-1,564 [-2,673 to -1,086] vs. -500 [-930 to +240] mL; p < 0.001) in responders than non-responders. Overall survival at 1 year was 63%.

CONCLUSION

In most patients, first-line support by IABP in end-stage cardiomyopathy is associated with improvement in organ perfusion and clinical stabilisation for at least 24 h allowing time for decision making on next therapies.

Cardiac replacement therapies: outcomes and costs for heart transplantation versus circulatory assist

OBJECTIVES

Growing number of patients with terminal heart failure and a shortage of heart donors have increased use of short- and long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Few studies have analyzed survival rates and healthcare costs for heart transplantation (HTx), with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

DESIGN

In a retrospective, single-center study, data were analyzed from patients listed for HTx who died on the waiting list (DWL, n = 12), underwent HTx (n = 206), had ECMO as bridge to HTx (ECHTx, n = 15), or received LVAD treatment, either isolated (LVAD, n = 19) or bridging to HTx (LVADHTx, n = 26) during 2005-2012. Survival and hospital costs were assessed.

RESULTS

One- and five-year survival rates were 96% and 83% for the LVADHTx group, 92% and 81% for HTx, 70% and 70% for ECHTx, 48% and 36% for LVAD and 0% for the DWL group (overall survival, p < 0.001). Total hospital cost at one year was $102,101 ± 202,604 for DWL, $151,685 ± 86,892 for HTx, $292,078 ± 101,915 for ECHTx, $427,337 ± 365,154 for LVAD, and $600,897 ± 198,109 for LVADHTx.

CONCLUSION

The LVADHTx and HTx groups showed excellent one- and five-year survival. The combined group of DWL and HTx patients had similar survival to the combined groups of MCS, but use of LVAD pre-transplant quadrupled the cost.

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.

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 pump counterpulsation on left ventricular mechanoenergetics in a porcine model of acute ischemic heart failure

We investigated the effects of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation on left ventricular (LV) contractility, relaxation, and energy consumption and probed the underlying physiologic mechanisms in 12 farm pigs, using an ischemia-reperfusion model of acute heart failure. During both ischemia and reperfusion, IABP support unloaded the LV, decreased LV energy consumption (pressure-volume area, stroke work), and concurrently improved LV mechanical performance (ejection fraction, stroke volume, cardiac output). During reperfusion exclusively, IABP also improved LV relaxation (tau) and contractility (Emax, PRSW). The beneficial effects of IABP support on LV relaxation and contractility correlated with IABP-induced augmentation of coronary blood flow. In conclusion, we find that during both ischemia and reperfusion, IABP support optimizes LV energetic performance (decreases energy consumption and concurrently improves mechanical performance) by LV unloading. During reperfusion exclusively, IABP support also improves LV contractility and active relaxation, possibly due to a synergistic effect of unloading and augmentation of coronary blood flow.

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.

Percutaneous placement of an intra-aortic balloon pump in the left axillary/subclavian position provides safe, ambulatory long-term support as bridge to heart transplantation

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the feasibility, tolerability, and efficacy of a strategy for percutaneous intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) placement through the left axillary-subclavian artery to provide mechanical circulatory support in patients with end-stage heart failure as a bridge to heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND

The transfemoral approach to IABP placement is associated with major disadvantages, including the risk for infection and limitation of patient mobility in those requiring extended support.

METHODS

We developed a percutaneous technique for placing IABPs in the left axillary artery that permits upright sitting and ambulation. We performed a retrospective review of data from patients who had undergone left axillary IABP implantation between 2007 and 2012.

RESULTS

Fifty patients who received a left axillary IABP as a bridge to transplantation were identified, of whom 42 (84%) underwent heart or heart-multiorgan transplantation. Cumulative survival on IABP support was 92%, and post-transplant 90-day survival was 90%. Median duration of support was 18 days. Four of 50 patients (8%) died while on IABP support, and 3 (6%) received greater mechanical circulatory support. Four patients (8%) had clinically significant thromboembolic or bleeding events without long-term sequelae. The most common minor adverse event was IABP malposition, in 22 patients (44%). Prolonged IABP support in the heart-transplantation cohort was associated with significant improvements in mean pulmonary artery pressure and in creatinine and total bilirubin concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous insertion of an IABP through the left axillary artery is a feasible and relatively well-tolerated strategy to bridge patients with end-stage heart failure to heart transplantation. This form of mechanical-device treatment permits upright sitting and ambulation in those requiring extended support.

Intra-aortic balloon pump (ΙΑΒΡ): from the old trends and studies to the current "extended" indications of its use

This report outlines the well defined indications of using IABP and also favours extending the indications of IABP use, to include not only “therapeutically” the aging unstable patients but also “prophylactically” patients with low EF or high Euroscore.

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 is only limited evidence by randomised controlled trials, the current guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology strongly recommend the use of the intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations as also non-randomised trials and registry data.   

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were conducted in January 2010, unrestricted by date. 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 myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection and analysis were performed according to a published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for five trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HR's) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Six eligible and two ongoing studies were identified from a total of 1410 references. Three compared IABP to standard treatment and three to percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 190 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the meta-analysis: 105 patients were treated with IABP and 85 patients served as controls. 40 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with LVAD. HR's for all-cause 30-day mortality of 1.04 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.73) provides no evidence for a survival benefit. While differences in survival were comparable in patients treated with IABP, with and without LVAD, haemodynamics and incidences of device related complications show heterogeneous results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on the haemodynamics, however there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct related cardiogenic shock.