Trends in Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support With and Without an Impella or Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Cardiogenic Shock

Background Mechanical circulatory support devices, such as the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella, are often used in patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) with cardiogenic shock despite limited supporting clinical trial data. Methods and Results Hospitalizations for cardiogenic shock from 2016 to 2018 were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Trends in the use of VA-ECLS with and without an IABP or Impella were assessed semiannually. Multivariable logistic regression and general linear regression evaluated the association of Impella and IABP use with in-hospital outcomes. Overall, 12 035 hospitalizations with cardiogenic shock and VA-ECLS were identified, of which 3115 (26%) also received an IABP and 1880 (16%) an Impella. Use of an Impella with VA-ECLS substantially increased from 10% to 18% over this period (P<0.001), whereas an IABP modestly increased from 25% to 26% (P<0.001). In-hospital mortality decreased 54% to 48% for VA-ECLS only, 61% to 58% for VA-ECLS with an Impella, and 54% to 49% for VA-ECLS with an IABP (P<0.001 each). Most (57%) IABPs or Impellas were placed on the same day as VA-ECLS. After adjustment, there were no differences in in-hospital mortality or length of stay with the addition of an IABP or Impella compared with VA-ECLS alone. Conclusions From 2016 to 2018 in the United States, use of an Impella and IABP with VA-ECLS significantly increased. More than half of Impellas and IABPs were placed on the same day as VA-ECLS, and the use of a second mechanical circulatory support device did not impact in-hospital mortality. Further studies are needed to decipher the optimal timing and patient selection for this growing practice.

Differences in Prognosis and Cardiac Function According to Required Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support and Histological Findings in Patients With Fulminant Myocarditis: Insights From the CHANGE PUMP 2 Study

Background

Prognoses and long‐term cardiac function of patients with fulminant myocarditis have not been fully elucidated. Therefore, we clarified the prognoses and long‐term cardiac function according to required percutaneous mechanical circulatory support and histological findings among patients with fulminant myocarditis.

Methods and Results

We conducted a multicenter retrospective medical record review of 216 patients with fulminant myocarditis requiring percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Sixty‐one patients were treated with intra‐aortic balloon pump or Impella alone, and 155 patients received veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and were treated with or without intra‐aortic balloon pump or Impella. Histologically, 107 patients had lymphocytic myocarditis; 34, eosinophilic myocarditis; and 4, giant cell myocarditis. Freedom from composite end point (death, durable left ventricular assist device implantation, and heart transplantation) was 66% at 90 days, 62% at 1 year, and 57% at 6 years. Veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use was associated with poor prognosis in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 5.27; 95% CI, 1.60–17.36). The eosinophilic myocarditis subgroup showed better prognosis (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10–0.80) compared with the lymphocytic myocarditis subgroup but not in the multivariable analysis. Ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation rhythm at admission, high C‐reactive protein level, and no endomyocardial biopsy were also associated with poor prognosis. The left ventricular ejection fraction at 1 year was ≤50% in 16% of patients and was lower in patients with eosinophilic myocarditis (median: 57.9% [48.8–65.0%]) than in those with lymphocytic myocarditis (65.0% [58.6–68.7%]) (P=0.036).

Conclusions

Patients with fulminant myocarditis who received veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation had a poor prognosis. Long‐term cardiac function was impaired in some patients, especially those with eosinophilic myocarditis.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are increasingly being used as destination therapy in patients with Stage D heart failure. It has been reported that a majority of patients who receive a durable LVAD (dLVAD) present in cardiogenic shock due to decompensated heart failure (ADHF‐CS). As it stands, there is no consensus on the optimal management strategy for patients presenting with ADHF. Bridging with intra‐aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) continues to be a therapeutic option in patients with hemodynamic instability due to cardiogenic shock. The majority of data regarding the use of IABP in cardiogenic shock come from studies in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and demonstrates that there is no benefit of routine IABP use in this patient population. However, the role of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in ADHF‐CS has yet to be determined. The hemodynamic changes seen in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock are known to be different and more acutely impaired than those presenting with ADHF‐CS as evidenced by differences in pressure/volume loops. Thus, data should not be extrapolated across these 2 very different disease processes. The aim of this review is to describe results from contemporary studies examining the use of IABPs as a bridge to dLVAD in patients with ADHF‐CS. Retrospective evidence from large registries suggests that the use of IABP as a bridge to dLVAD is feasible and safe when compared with other platforms of temporary mechanical circulatory support. However, there is currently a paucity of high‐quality evidence examining this increasingly important clinical question.

Impellent impeller-Switching intra-aortic balloon pump to IMPELLA-CP after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and refractory cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is a dreadful complication of myocardial infarction. Despite widespread use and availability, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) does not reduce mortality nor improves outcomes. Advanced mechanical circulatory support with IMPELLA system can substantially support hemodynamics and improve short-term prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.

Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip NT™ system in a patient presenting with prolonged cardiogenic shock

The MitraClip NT™ system for the treatment of severe mitral valve regurgitation is effective and safe – even for patients suffering from cardiogenic shock. The use of an intra‐aortic balloon pump expands the range of possible applications to this particular group of challenging patients.

Successful recovery of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy with severely depressed left ventricular systolic function by catheter ablation with mechanical hemodynamic support: a case report

We describe the case that persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to rhythm control by pharmacotherapy and electrical cardioversions caused tachycardia‐induced cardiomyopathy with low ejection fraction and hemodynamic instability. Mechanical hemodynamic support using an intra‐aortic balloon pump is one of the choices of hemodynamic support during catheter ablation by pulmonary vein isolation.

Cardiogenic shock: therapy and prevention

Cardiogenic shock is defined as profound circulatory failure resulting in insufficient tissue perfusion to meet resting metabolic demands. It occurs in approximately 7.5% of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Treatment strategies include inotropic agents, use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, and revascularization. Current evidence supports the use of primary angioplasty. Surgery should be considered in patients with triple-vessel disease. If early catheterization is not available, thrombolytic therapy should be given to eligible patients and transfer to an interventional facility should be considered. Effective therapy for shock must also include a prevention strategy. This requires identification of patients at high risk for shock development and selection of patients who are candidates for aggressive intervention.