Percutaneous assist devices in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Review, meta-analysis

Effect of intra-aortic balloon pump with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of a concomitant intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) intervention in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) patients is contested in the literature. This study sought to compare short-term mortality weaning rate from VA-ECMOin AMICS cases.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review and compared the primary and secondary endpoints in the following treatment groups of AMICS patients: (1) VA-ECMO plus IABP vs. IABP alone and (2) VA-ECMO plus IABP vs. VA-ECMO alone. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause mortality; while 30-days mortality, weaning from VA-ECMO, and vascular complications comprised secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

VA-ECMO concomitant with IABP was administered to 3,580 (76.4%) patients, while IABP alone and VA-ECMO alone treatments accounted for 1.7% and 21.9% of the patients, respectively. We found that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients treated with VA-ECMO plus IABP vs. VA-ECMO alone (odds ratio (OR) = 0.52; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.21-1.31; I-squared statistic (I2 = 30%) or IABP alone (OR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.08-0.55; I2 = 0%). Additionally, 30-days mortality was significantly lower in patients treated with VA-ECMO plus IABP vs. VA-ECMO alone (OR = 0.31; 95% CI = 0.25-0.40; I2 = 0%) or IABP alone (OR = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.11-0.50; I2 = 0%). A significant difference was observed in weaning from VA-ECMO in patients treated with VA-ECMO plus IABP vs. VA-ECMO alone (OR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.09-3.33; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

In-hospital and 30-days mortality were significantly lower in AMICS patients treated with VA-ECMO plus IABP vs. VA-ECMO alone or IABP alone. VA-ECMO with concomitant IABP could increase the proportion of patients weaned from VA-ECMO, significantly reducing in-hospital mortality, without increasing complications.

Predictors of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock: insights from an Egyptian multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in developing countries where there are limited resources and a lack of data on CS outcomes. This study aimed to investigate 30-day all-cause mortality in Egyptian patients with CS at tertiary referral centers.

RESULTS

This prospective, observational multicenter registry analyzed 16,681 patients from six cardiac centers, to evaluate the incidence, causes and predictors of CS-related mortality. Among the 529 diagnosed CS patients, 68.2% had an ischemic etiology. No discernable variations were observed in clinical or laboratory features, as well as mortality rates, between ischemic and non-ischemic CS patients. Within 30 days, 210 deaths (39.7%) occurred. Non-survivors with ischemic CS had a higher prevalence of diabetes, worsening renal function, and were more likely to receive multiple inotropes. Mortality did not significantly differ between acute coronary syndrome patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) (42.7% vs. 43.7%, p < 0.887). However, anterior STEMI patients had significantly higher mortality than those with inferior STEMI (49.5% vs. 21.6%, p < 0.003). Multivariate regression analysis identified predictors of mortality in CS, including the median hospital stay duration, leucocyte count, alanine transaminase levels, highest creatinine levels, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and use of norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine.

CONCLUSION

In an Egyptian cohort, CS incidence was 3.17%, with no mortality difference based on the underlying etiology. Independent predictors of 30-day all-cause mortality included worsening renal function, leucocyte count, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and use of multiple inotropes/vasopressors.

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

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

Outcomes of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Plus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping for Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

Background

Clinical outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock remain poor with high in‐hospital mortality. Veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) has been widely used for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock refractory to conservative therapy, which is likely fatal without mechanical circulatory support. However, whether additional intra‐aortic balloon pumping (IABP) use during VA‐ECMO support improves clinical outcomes remains controversial. This study sought to investigate prognostic impact of the combined VA‐ECMO plus IABP treatment compared with VA‐ECMO alone.

Methods and Results

From the nationwide Japanese administrative case‐mix Diagnostic Procedure Combination (DPC), the JROAD (Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases)–DPC, we identified 3815 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and managed with VA‐ECMO. Of these, 2964 patients (77.7%) were managed with IABP (VA‐ECMO plus IABP), whereas 851 (22.3%) were managed without IABP (VA‐ECMO alone). We compared in‐hospital, 7‐day, and 30‐day mortality between the VA‐ECMO plus IABP versus the VA‐ECMO alone support. Patients managed with VA‐ECMO plus IABP demonstrated significantly lower in‐hospital, 7‐day, and 30‐day mortality than those managed with VA‐ECMO alone (adjusted odds ratios [95% CI] of 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38–0.59], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.33–0.51], and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.25–0.37], respectively). The findings were consistent in the propensity matching and inverse probability of treatment‐weighting models.

Conclusions

This large‐scale, nationwide study demonstrated that the combination of VA‐ECMO plus IABP support was associated with significantly lower mortality compared with VA‐ECMO support alone in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support and survival in patients resuscitated from Out of Hospital cardiac arrest: A study from the CARES surveillance group

INTRODUCTION

Maintenance of cardiac function is required for successful outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Cardiac function can be augmented using a mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device, most commonly an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella®.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to assess whether the use of a MCS is associated with improved survival in patients resuscitated from OHCA in Michigan.

METHODS

We matched cardiac arrest cases during 2014-2017 from the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) in Michigan and the Michigan Inpatient Database (MIDB) using probabilistic linkage. Multilevel logistic regression tested the association between MCS and the primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 3790 CARES cases were matched with the MIDB and 1131 (29.8%) survived to hospital discharge. A small number were treated with MCS, an IABP (n = 183) or Impella® (n = 50). IABP use was associated with an improved outcome (unadjusted OR = 2.16, 95%CI [1.59, 2.93]), while use of Impella® approached significance (OR = 1.72, 95% CI [0.96, 3.06]). Use of MCS was associated with improved outcome (unadjusted OR = 2.07, 95% CI [1.55, 2.77]). In a multivariable model, MCS use was no longer independently associated with improved outcome (OR_adj = 0.95, 95% CI [0.69, 1.31]). In the subset of subjects with cardiogenic shock (N = 725), MCS was associated with improved survival in univariate (unadjusted OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.24, 2.73]) but not multi-variable modeling (OR_adj = 1.14, 95% CI [0.74, 1.77]).

CONCLUSION

Use of MCS was infrequent in patients resuscitated from OHCA and was not independently associated with improvement in post arrest survival after adjusting for covariates.

Percutaneous coronary intervention assisted by invasive mechanical ventilation and intra-aortic balloon pump for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Retrospective cohort study and meta-analyses

There is little evidence to recommend the optimal invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) modes and ideal positive end-expiratory pressure stress levels for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the mortality outcome in patients with AMI-CS who were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) assisted by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) + IMV with historical controls. From January 1, 2016 to June 1, 2017, 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled at Tianjin Chest Hospital. Out of these, 88.3% of patients achieved thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow 3 after PCI. The all-cause mortality rate in-hospital and at 1 year was 25% (95% CI: 0.14–0.36) and 33.9% (0.22–0.46), respectively. A systematic review followed by meta-analysis was performed with four historical studies of patients treated by PCI + IMV with partial IABP, which found an in-hospital mortality rate of 66.0% (95% CI: 0.62–0.71). Recently, a meta-analysis of patients receiving PCI + IABP with partial IMV showed that the 1 year mortality rate was 52.2% (95% CI: 0.47–0.58). In Cox regression analysis of patient data from the current study, lactic acid level ≥4.5 mmol/L, hyperuricemia, and TIMI flow <3 were independent predictors of death at 1 year. All-cause mortality, in-hospital and at 1 year, in patients with AMI-CS treated with PCI + IABP and IMV was lower than in those treated with PCI + partial IABP or IMV. Larger, longer-term direct comparisons are warranted.

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.

Short-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review

Cardiogenic shock remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction and advanced heart failure. Intra-aortic balloon pump has been the most widely used short-term mechanical circulatory support device to rapidly stabilize hemodynamics. However, it provides modest support, current evidence does not show a decrease in mortality, and the latest guidelines no longer recommend its routine use. Several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices have been introduced into clinical practice (Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygen, TandemHeart), providing a greater level of hemodynamic support. These resource-intensive devices demand a careful selection of patients that stand to benefit the most. Premature initiation of mechanical circulatory support exposes the patient to unnecessary risk, whereas delaying therapy leads to irreversible end-organ injury, rendering any intervention medically futile. Cannulation methods, pump designs, and circuit configurations differ between devices, as do the adverse effects and physiological impact on the myocardium, which needs to be factored into consideration before deployment on the patient in cardiogenic shock. This article will review the commonly used percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in the setting of cardiogenic shock, compare their advantages and disadvantages, evaluate key clinical trials, and discuss a practical approach to guide clinicians' decision and management.

Left Ventricle Unloading with Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

During veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), the increase of left ventricular (LV) afterload can potentially increase the LV stress, exacerbate myocardial ischemia and delay recovery from cardiogenic shock (CS). Several strategies of LV unloading have been proposed. Systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement included adult patients from studies published between January 2000 and March 2019. The search was conducted through numerous databases. Overall, from 62 papers, 7581 patients were included, among whom 3337 (44.0%) received LV unloading concomitant to VA-ECMO. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 58.9% (4466/7581). A concomitant strategy of LV unloading as compared to ECMO alone was associated with 12% lower mortality risk (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82–0.93; p < 0.0001; I² = 40%) and 35% higher probability of weaning from ECMO (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.21–1.51; p < 0.00001; I² = 38%). In an analysis stratified by setting, the highest mortality risk benefit was observed in case of acute myocardial infarction: RR 0.75; 95%CI 0.68–0.83; p < 0.0001; I² = 0%. There were no apparent differences between two techniques in terms of complications. In heterogeneous populations of critically ill adults in CS and supported with VA-ECMO, the adjunct of LV unloading is associated with lower early mortality and higher rate of weaning.

Intra-aortic balloon pump in acute chest pain and cardiogenic shock - a long-term follow-up

Objectives. Coronary revascularisation and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been considered the gold standard treatment of acute coronary syndrome with cardiogenic shock, recently challenged by the SHOCK II study. The aim of this non-randomised study was to investigate the long term prognosis after immediate IABP supported angiography, in patients with acute chest pain and cardiogenic shock, treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), cardiac surgery or optimal medical treatment. We assessed data from 281 consecutive patients admitted to our department from 2004 to 2010. Results. Mean (±SD) age was 63.8 ± 11.5 (range 30-84) years with a follow-up of 5.6 ± 4.4 (0-12.7) years. Acute myocardial infarction was the primary diagnosis in 93% of the patients, 4% presented with unstable angina pectoris and 3% cardiomyopathy or arrhythmias of non-ischemic aetiology. Systolic blood pressure at admittance was 85 ± 18 mmHg and diastolic 55 ± 18 mmHg. Thirty day, one- and five-year survival was 71.2%, 67.3% and 57.7%, respectively. PCI was performed immediately in 70%, surgery was done in 17%, and 13% were not eligible for any revascularisation. Independent variables predicting mortality were medical treatment vs revascularisation, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and advanced age. Three serious non-fatal complications occurred due to IABP treatment, i.e. 0.001 per treatment day. Conclusions. We report the use of IABP in patients with acute chest pain admitted for angiography. Long-term survival is acceptable and discriminating factors were no revascularisation, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and age. IABP was safe and feasible and the complication rate was low.

Hemodynamic effects of perfusion level of peripheral ECMO on cardiovascular system

Background

Peripheral ECMO is an effective cardiopulmonary support in clinical. The perfusion level could directly influence the performances and complications. However, there are few studies on the effects of the perfusion level on hemodynamics of peripheral ECMO.

Methods

The geometric model of cardiovascular system with peripheral ECMO was established. The blood assist index was used to classify the perfusion level of the ECMO. The flow pattern from the aorta to the femoral artery and their branches, blood flow rate from aorta to brain and limbs, flow interface, harmonic index of blood flow, wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index were chosen to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of peripheral ECMO.

Results

The results demonstrated that the flow rate of aorta outlets increased and perfusion condition had been improved. And the average flow to the upper limbs and brain has a positive correlation with BAI (r = 0.037, p < 0.05), while there is a negative correlation with lower limbs (r = − 0.054, p < 0.05). The HI has negative correlation with BAI (p < 0.05, r < 0). The blood interface is further from the heart with the BAI decrease. And the average WSS has negative correlation with BAI (p < 0.05, r = − 0.983) at the bifurcation of femoral aorta and has positive correlation with BAI (p < 0.05, r = 0.99) at the inner aorta. The OSI under different BAI is higher (reaching 0.4) at the inner wall of the aortic arch, the descending aorta and the femoral access.

Conclusions

The pathogenesis of peripheral ECMO with different perfusion levels varies; its further research will be thorough and extensive.

Further options and survival results after failure following extracorporeal life support implantation

BACKGROUND

A retrospective study was designed to analyze the outcome of patients with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) who needed a consecutive cardiac or pulmonary support system.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2016, 93 out of 587 patients with their age ranging from 2.4 to 77.3 years required an exchange of an ECLS by another mechanical support system. Sixty-one patients were inhospital cases, 39 patients were referred with ECLS from other institutions by ambulance car (N.=15) or helicopter (N.=24). Sixty-five patients came from internal medicine wards, of which 38 patients had CPR, whereas 24 patients suffered postcardiotomy failure with CPR in 11 cases. Ten patients were referred from other hospitals for failure to wean from ECLS.

RESULTS

Leading symptoms were continuing cardiac failure in 43 patients (46%) and ongoing respiratory failure after cardiac recovery in 50 patients (54%). Patients with cardiac failure underwent implantation of a ventricular assist device (N.=36) or remained on long-term ECLS (N.=7) until a donor organ for heart transplantation was available (mean waiting time 43 days). Respiratory failure was treated by veno-venous ECMO (N.=34) or vav-ECMO (N.=16). Overall inhouse survival was 50.5% (N.=47). Only 22.6% of patients (N.=21) died during ongoing support. In contrast, 26.9% of patients (N.=25) deceased 35+/-51 days after weaning from vv- or vav-ECMO. Major reasons of death were multi-organ failure in 16 patients, cerebral hypoxia in 12 patients, sepsis in 10 patients, and intractable ow output in 5 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a switch from ECLS to another mechanical support system, survival remains limited as irreversible multi-organ failure and sepsis still jeopardize the patients' life.

Left Heart Decompression in Acute Complicated Myocardial Infarction During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) can progress to cardiogenic shock and mechanical complications. When extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is applied to a patient with AMI with cardiogenic shock and mechanical complications, left ventricular (LV) decompression is an important recovery factor because LV dilation increases myocardial wall stress and oxygen consumption. The authors present the case of a 72-year-old man with AMI and LV dilation who developed cardiogenic shock and papillary muscle rupture and who was treated successfully by ECMO with a left atrial venting.

Current and Future Percutaneous Strategies for the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) has risen in parallel with improved survival in patients after a myocardial infarction and an aging population worldwide. In recent years, new percutaneous therapies have been developed to complement current established treatments for acute/decompensated and chronic HF and minimize risks. In acute presentations, the failure of medical treatment is no longer the end of the road in refractory circulatory shock; the use of mechanical circulatory support devices may be the next milestone in well-resourced health settings. Although evidence in this area is difficult to generate, research networks can facilitate the volume and quality of data needed to further augment the clinician's knowledge. Pulsatile (intra-aortic balloon pump), axial continuous (Impella), or centrifugal continuous pumps (TandemHeart; HeartMate PHP) together with percutaneously implanted extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are radically changing the prognosis of acute HF. Newer percutaneous therapies for chronic HF are based on attractive hypotheses, including left atrial decompression with shunting devices, left ventricle restoration through partitioning devices, or pressure-guided implantable therapies that may help to promptly treat decompensations. To date, only the last has been proved effective in a randomized study. Therefore, thorough research is still needed in this dynamic and promising field.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiac Critical Care: A State of the Art Review and Algorithm for Device Selection

With more than 60 years of continuous development and improvement, a variety of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices and implantation strategies exist, each with unique advantages and disadvantages. A thorough understanding of each available device is essential for optimizing patient outcomes in a fiscally responsible manner. In this state of the art review we examine the entire range of commonly available peripheral and centrally cannulated temporary MCS devices, including intra-aortic balloon pumps, the Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) family of microaxial pumps, the TandemHeart (CardiacAssist Inc, Pittsburg, PA) pump and percutaneous cannulas, centrally cannulated centrifugal pumps such as the CentriMag (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, CA/St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN/Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL) and Rotaflow (Maquet Holding BV & Co KG, Rastatt Germany), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Several factors need detailed consideration when contemplating MCS in any given patient, mandating a balanced, algorithmic approach for these sick patients. In this review we describe our approach to MCS, and emphasize the need for multidisciplinary input to consider patient-related, logistical, and institutional factors. Evidence is summarized and referenced where available, but because of the lack of high-quality evidence, current best practice is described. Future directions for investigation are discussed, which will better define patient and device selection, and optimize MCS-specific patient care protocols.