Comparison of hospital mortality with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation insertion before versus after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

PEAL Score to Predict the Mortality Risk of Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Department: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The in-hospital mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high (28% to 45%). As a result, several studies developed prediction models to assess the mortality risk and provide guidance on treatment, including CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II scores, which performed modestly in external validation studies, reflecting the heterogeneity of the CS populations. Few articles established predictive scores of CS based on Asian people with a higher burden of comorbidities than Caucasians. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of a contemporary Asian population with CS, identify risk factors, and develop a predictive scoring model.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted between 2014 and 2019 to collect the patients who presented with all-cause CS in the emergency department of a single medical center in Taiwan. We divided patients into subgroups of CS related to acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) or heart failure (HF-CS). The outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. We built the prediction model based on the hazard ratio of significant variables, and the cutoff point of each predictor was determined using the Youden index. We also assessed the discrimination ability of the risk score using the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

We enrolled 225 patients with CS. One hundred and seven patients (47.6%) were due to AMI-CS, and ninety-eight patients among them received reperfusion therapy. Forty-nine patients (21.8%) eventually died within 30 days. Fifty-three patients (23.55%) presented with platelet counts < 155 × 103/μL, which were negatively associated with a 30-day mortality of CS in the restrictive cubic spline plot, even within the normal range of platelet counts. We identified four predictors: platelet counts < 200 × 103/μL (HR 2.574, 95% CI 1.379-4.805, p = 0.003), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% (HR 2.613, 95% CI 1.020-6.692, p = 0.045), age > 71 years (HR 2.452, 95% CI 1.327-4.531, p = 0.004), and lactate > 2.7 mmol/L (HR 1.967, 95% CI 1.069-3.620, p = 0.030). The risk score ended with a maximum of 5 points and showed an AUC (95% CI) of 0.774 (0.705-0.843) for all patients, 0.781 (0.678-0.883), and 0.759 (0.662-0.855) for AMI-CS and HF-CS sub-groups, respectively, all p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on four parameters, platelet counts, LVEF, age, and lactate (PEAL), this model showed a good predictive performance for all-cause mortality at 30 days in the all patients, AMI-CS, and HF-CS subgroups. The restrictive cubic spline plot showed a significantly negative correlation between initial platelet counts and 30-day mortality risk in the AMI-CS and HF-CS subgroups.

Delayed Ventricular Septal Rupture Repair After Myocardial Infarction: An Updated Review

Ventricular septal rupture (VSR) is a rare but serious complication that can occur after myocardial infarction (MI) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The optimal management approach for VSR remains a topic of debate, with considerations including early versus delayed surgery, risk stratification, pharmacological interventions, minimally invasive techniques, and tissue engineering. The pathophysiology of VSR involves myocardial necrosis, inflammatory response, and enzymatic degradation of the extracellular matrix (ECM), particularly mediated by matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs). These processes lead to structural weakening and subsequent rupture of the ventricular septum. Hemodynamically, VSR results in left-to-right shunting, increased pulmonary blood flow, and potentially hemodynamic instability. The early surgical repair offers the advantages of immediate closure of the defect, prevention of complications, and potentially improved outcomes. However, it is associated with higher surgical risk and limited myocardial recovery potential during the waiting period. In contrast, delayed surgery allows for a period of myocardial recovery, risk stratification, and optimization of surgical outcomes. However, it carries the risk of ongoing complications and progression of ventricular remodeling. Risk stratification plays a crucial role in determining the optimal timing for surgery and tailoring treatment plans. Various clinical factors, imaging assessments, scoring systems, biomarkers, and hemodynamic parameters aid in risk assessment and guide decision-making. Pharmacological interventions, including vasopressors, diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents, and antiarrhythmic drugs, are employed to stabilize hemodynamics, prevent complications, promote myocardial healing, and improve outcomes in VSR patients. Advancements in minimally invasive techniques, such as percutaneous device closure, and tissue engineering hold promise for less invasive interventions and better outcomes. These approaches aim to minimize surgical morbidity, optimize healing, and enhance patient recovery. In conclusion, the management of VSR after MI requires a multidimensional approach that considers various aspects, including risk stratification, surgical timing, pharmacological interventions, minimally invasive techniques, and tissue engineering.

INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON PUMP REDUCES 30-DAY MORTALITY IN EARLY-STAGE CARDIOGENIC SHOCK COMPLICATING ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION ACCORDING TO SCAI CLASSIFICATION

ABSTRACT

Background: Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) remains a high 30-day mortality. Mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in AMICS, but their effects on mortality vary partly because of shock severity. Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the association between intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and 30-day mortality in patients with early-stage AMICS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) based on a multicenter clinical trial (NCT04996901). Patients were stratified by IABP use, and shock severity was classified according to the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) SHOCK stages. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. The association between IABP and 30-day mortality was evaluated across shock stages using propensity score matching, weighting, and logistic regression. Results: Five thousand three hundred forty-three patients were included, and 299 received IABP. The SCAI SHOCK stage was associated with 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 20.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.60-29.97; P < 0.001). In the 580 matched patients, a significant interaction between IABP and 30-day mortality at different shock stages was observed ( P = 0.005). Intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with lower 30-day mortality among patients with shock stage A/B (5.8% vs. 1.2%; OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03-0.73; P = 0.034) but not stage C/D/E (29.3% vs. 38.1%; OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.84-2.65; P = 0.172). These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses of the weighted cohort. Conclusions: Intra-aortic balloon pump reduced 30-day mortality in patients with early-stage AMICS. The SCAI SHOCK stage provides risk stratification for patients with STEMI and helps identify those who may respond well to IABP.

Role of acute mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock is a state of low cardiac output that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A considerable proportion of patients with cardiogenic shock respond poorly to medical management and require acute mechanical circulatory support (AMCS) devices to improve tissue perfusion as well as to support the heart. In the last two decades, many new AMCS devices have been introduced to support the right, left, and both ventricles. All these devices vary in terms of the support they provide to the body and heart, mechanism of functioning, method of insertion, and adverse events. In this review, we compare and contrast the available percutaneous and surgically placed AMCS devices used in cardiogenic shock and discuss the associated clinical and hemodynamic data to make a conscious decision about choosing a device.

Trends in Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Use in Cardiogenic Shock After the SHOCK-II Trial

Myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) has a poor prognosis, even with early revascularization. Previously, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use was thought to improve outcomes, but the IABP-SHOCK-II (Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock-II study) trial found no survival benefit. We aimed to determine the trends in IABP use in patients who underwent percutaneous intervention over time. Data were taken from patients in the Melbourne Interventional Group registry (2005 to 2018) with MI-CS who underwent percutaneous intervention. The primary outcome was the trend in IABP use over time. The secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Of the 1,110 patients with MI-CS, IABP was used in 478 patients (43%). IABP was used more in patients with left main/left anterior descending culprit lesions (62% vs 46%), lower ejection fraction (<35%; 18% vs 11%), and preprocedural inotrope use (81% vs 73%, all p <0.05). IABP use was associated with higher bleeding (18% vs 13%) and 30-day MACCE (58% vs 51%, both p <0.05). The rate of MI-CS per year increased over time; however, after 2012, there was a decrease in IABP use (p <0.001). IABP use was a predictor of 30-day MACCE (odds ratio 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.29, p = 0.003). However, IABP was not associated with in-hospital, 30-day, or long-term mortality (45% vs 47%, p = 0.44; 46% vs 50%, p = 0.25; 60% vs 62%, p = 0.39). In conclusion, IABP was not associated with reduced short- or long-term mortality and was associated with increased short-term adverse events. IABP use is decreasing but is predominately used in sicker patients with greater myocardium at risk.

Microaxial circulatory support for percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Microaxial circulatory support devices have been used to support patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to pool and analyze the existing evidence on the baseline characteristics, periprocedural data, and outcomes of microaxial support before and after PCI in AMICS.

METHODS

An electronic database search was performed to identify all cohort studies on Impella and PCI for cardiogenic shock in the English language. A total of five articles comprising 543 patients were included. These patients received microaxial support either before (pre-PCI) or after (post-PCI) undergoing PCI. Comparative analyses were done between both groups.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 66 years [95% Confidence Interval (58-74)], and 22% (89/396) of patients were female. ST-elevation myocardial infarctions (MI) comprised 64% (44-80) of MIs and 50% (44-56) of MIs involved the left anterior descending artery. The mean number of diseased vessels was 2.21 (1.62-2.80). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31% (23.4-38.6). The mean arterial pressure was 66.3 mm Hg (54.1-78.5). Mean serum lactate [6.1 mmol/L (3.3-8.9)] and serum creatinine [1.4 mg/dl (1.0-1.7)] were similar between groups. 30-day mortality was lower in the pre-PCI group [41% (34%-49%)] compared to the post-PCI group [61% (42%-77%), p < 0.01]. Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis showed better early survival in the pre-PCI group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients presenting with AMICS were similar at baseline in both pre-PCI and post-PCI groups. Nevertheless, pre-PCI group showed better early survival compared to post-PCI group.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With High Thrombus Burden and Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with high-grade thrombus is a high-risk intervention associated with poor clinical outcomes. Circulatory support with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during PCI may potentially improve coronary hemodynamics and clinical outcomes in such patients. As existing data on this situation are sparse, we did an observational study to determine short-term outcomes of PCI with IABP support in STEMI patients with high thrombus burden.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether IABP has a potential role in improving outcomes in patients with STEMI with high thrombus burden who are undergoing PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty consecutive patients of STEMI with high thrombus burden undergoing PCI with IABP assistance were included. Ninety-three percent of patients had a cardiogenic shock. Clinical and angiographic outcomes assessed include a change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 30-day mortality, and assessment of TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction) flow, TIMI frame count, and TIMI myocardial perfusion grade in the culprit vessel. IABP was initiated before coronary angiography in 36.6% (n=11), between angiography and PCI in 30% (n=9), and after PCI in 33.3% (n=10) of patients. During the 30-day follow-up period, 50% (n=15) of patients died. 86.6% (n=13) of survivors had pre-PCI IABP initiation compared to only 46.6% (n=7) among those who died (p=0.020). With pre-PCI IABP initiation (n=20), 30-day mortality was 35% (n=7) compared to 80% (n=8) with post-PCI IABP initiation (n=10) (p=0.020).

CONCLUSION

IABP initiation before PCI in STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and high angiographic thrombus burden can decrease mortality without any effect on angiographic parameters.

Mechanical circulatory support in refractory cardiogenic shock: retrospective register study

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is one of the main causes of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Mortality from CS remains high, despite the introduction of myocardial revascularization and the use of modern medication. The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is promising, it could reduce mortality in patients with AMI and CS. Aim. To define effectiveness and safety of MCS in patients with AMI and CS. Materials and methods. Our study includes 47 patients with AMI and refractory CS, who were treated at the University Clinic of Cardiology of the Yevdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry from 2019 to 2022. Mortality and various complications were analyzed in patients with refractory CS, patients who received and did not receive mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump IABP, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ECMO). Results. Mortality among patients with refractory CS was significantly lower in the subgroup of patients who received mechanical circulatory support devices (59% vs 93%; p=0.02). Moreover, reliability is achieved mainly due to patients in whom were VA-ECMO implanted (p=0.02), not IABP (p=0.16). Conclusion. VA-ECMO associated with reduced mortality and should be considered in patients with AMI and refractory CS. Further research is needed to select the optimal method of mechanical circulatory support in patients with CS.

Escalating and De-escalating Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS.

ANMCO POSITION PAPER: Role of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock

The treatment of patients with advanced acute heart failure is still challenging. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has widely been used in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock. However, according to international guidelines, its routinary use in patients with cardiogenic shock is not recommended. This recommendation is derived from the results of the IABP-SHOCK II trial, which demonstrated that IABP does not reduce all-cause mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. The present position paper, released by the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists, reviews the available data derived from clinical studies. It also provides practical recommendations for the optimal use of IABP in the treatment of cardiogenic shock and advanced acute heart failure.

Diabetic patients who present with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcomes of diabetic patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in contemporary practice have received limited study.

METHODS

We evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of STEMI patients with and without diabetes in a large regional STEMI program designed to facilitate timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, MN). The primary and secondary outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (stroke, myocardial infarction, unplanned PCI or coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery, and all-cause mortality), and 5-year mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 6292 patients included, 1158 (18.4%) had Diabetes Mellitus (DM) (95.3% Type II, 4.7% Type I). Patients with DM were older (mean age 66 vs. 62.8 years, p < 0.01), had more co-morbidities and were more likely to receive medical therapy without reperfusion (13% vs. 10%, p = 0.003). Patients with DM had higher in-hospital (8% vs. 5%, p = 0.001), 1-year (8% vs. 4%, p < 0.001) and 5-year mortality (16% vs. 9%, p < 0.001) compared to non-diabetics. On Cox proportional hazards analysis, DM was independently associated with worse mortality (hazard ratio: 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-2.19, p < 0.001) and MACE [HR: 1.63 (95% (CI)): 1.28-2.08, p < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Despite advancements in medical therapy and revascularization strategies for STEMI, DM remains independently associated with higher short- and long-term morbidity and mortality in contemporary practice.

Association Between Timing of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Clinical Outcomes in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether earlier extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock (CS).

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of patients with refractory CS receiving ECMO remains poor. However, little is known about the association between the timing of ECMO implantation and clinical outcomes in these patients.

METHODS

From a multicenter registry, 362 patients with refractory CS who underwent ECMO between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified. Participants were classified into 3 groups according to tertiles of shock-to-ECMO time (early, intermediate, and late ECMO). Inverse probability of treatment weighting was conducted to adjust for baseline differences among the groups, followed by a weighted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for 30-day mortality associated with each ECMO time group.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day mortality rate was 40.9%. The risk for 30-day mortality was lower in the early group than in the late group (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.99). Early ECMO support was also associated with lower risk for in-hospital mortality, ECMO weaning failure, composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure at 1 year, all-cause mortality at 1 year, and poor neurological outcome at discharge. However, the incidence of adverse events, including stroke, limb ischemia, ECMO-site bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding, did not differ significantly among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier ECMO support was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with refractory CS.

Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: Should we unload the ventricle before percutaneous coronary intervention?

Despite early reperfusion and coordinated systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the number one cause of morbidity and in-hospital mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CS is a complex clinical syndrome that begins with hemodynamic instability and can progress to multi-organ failure and profound hemo-metabolic compromise. To improve outcomes, a clear understanding of the treatment objectives in CS and developing time-sensitive management strategies aimed at stabilizing hemodynamics and restoring myocardial perfusion are critical. Left ventricular (LV) load has been identified as an independent predictor of heart failure and mortality following AMI. Decades of preclinical and clinical research have identified several effective LV unloading strategies. Recent initiatives from single and multi-center registries and more recently the Door to Unload (DTU)-STEMI pilot study have provided valuable insight to developing a standardized treatment approach to AMI, based on early invasive hemodynamics and tailored circulatory support to unload the LV. To follow is a review of the pathophysiology and prevalence of shock, limitations of current therapies, and the pre-clinical and translational basis for incorporating LV unloading into contemporary AMI and shock care.

Impact of timing of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation on mortality in cardiogenic shock - a subanalysis of the IABP-SHOCK II trial

BACKGROUND

Conflicting results exist on whether initiation of intraaortic balloon pumping (IABP) before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has an impact on outcome in this setting. Our aim was to assess the outcome of patients undergoing IABP insertion before versus after primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

The IABP-SHOCK II-trial randomized 600 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock to IABP-support versus control. We analysed the outcome of patients randomized to the intervention group regarding timing of IABP implantation before or after PCI.

RESULTS

Of 600 patients included in the IABP-SHOCK II trial, 301 were randomized to IABP-support. We analysed the 275 (91%) patients of this group undergoing primary PCI as revascularization strategy surviving the initial procedure. IABP insertion was performed before PCI in 33 (12%) and after PCI in 242 (88%) patients. There were no differences in baseline arterial lactate (p = 0.70), Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II-score (p = 0.60) and other relevant baseline characteristics. No differences were observed for short- and long-term mortality (pre vs. post 30-day mortality: 36% vs. 37%, odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-2.12, p = 0.99; one-year mortality: 56% vs. 48%, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.65-1.80, p = 0.76; six-year-mortality: 64% vs. 65%, hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.63-1.60, p = 0.99). In multivariable Cox regression analysis timing of IABP-implantation was no predictor for long-term outcome (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.66-1.78, p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of IABP-implantation pre or post primary PCI had no impact on outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

Trends, Outcomes, and Predictors of Revascularization in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) carries high mortality and morbidity. Early revascularization is an important strategy in management of these patients. We sought to determine the outcomes and predictors of revascularization among patients with CS. Patients with CS and acute myocardial infarction were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from January 2002 to December 2014 using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. Subsequently, patients who underwent revascularization were then selected. A total of 118,618 patients with CS were identified. Out of these, about 55,735 (47%) patients underwent revascularization. Mean age of patients who underwent revascularization was lower when compared with patients not who underwent revascularization (66.40 vs 72.24 years, p < 0.01). Patients who underwent revascularization had lower mortality when compared with patients not who underwent revascularization (25.1% vs 52.2%, p < 0.01). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and mechanical circulatory support devices were often utilized more in patients who underwent revascularization. Overall, we found modest increased trend of revascularization over our study years with decline in mortality. Female gender, weekend admission, drug abuse, pulmonary hypertension, anemia, renal failure, neurological disorders, malignancy were associated with lower odds of revascularization. In conclusion, in this large nationally represented US population sample of CS patients, we found revascularization rate of about 47% with improvement in overall mortality over our study years.

Association between the Door-to-balloon Time and Mid-term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Objective In primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the door-to-balloon time (DTBT) is known to be associated with in-hospital death in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, little is known regarding the association between the DTBT and the mid-term clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between the DTBT and mid-term all-cause death. Methods The study population included 309 STEMI patients, who were divided into the short DTBT (DTBT<60 minutes, n=103), intermediate DTBT (DTBT 60-120 minutes, n=174) and long DTBT (DTBT >120 minutes, n=32) groups. The median follow-up period was 287 days (interquartile range: 182-624 days). Results The incidence of all-cause death in the long DTBT group was significantly higher in comparison to the other groups (p<0.001). In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, although a short DTBT [vs. intermediate DTBT: hazard ratio (HR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-2.55, p=0.99] was not associated with all-cause death, a long DTBT (vs. intermediate DTBT: HR 2.80, 95% CI 1.26-6.17, p=0.011) was significantly associated with all-cause death, after controlling for confounding factors such as Killip class 4, an impaired renal function, and the number of diseased vessels. Conclusion The DTBT was significantly associated with the incidence of mid-term all-cause death. Our results support the strong adherence to the DTBT in patients with STEMI.

Outcomes after intra-aortic balloon pump insertion in cardiac surgery patients

Objective

To assess whether preoperative versus intraoperative insertion of an intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with lower 30-day mortality or reduced length of hospital stay among patients who had an intra-aortic balloon pump inserted for cardiac surgery.

Methods

This was an observational study of patients who had an intra-aortic balloon pump inserted in the preoperative or intraoperative period of cardiac surgery in our department between 2000 and 2012. We assessed the association between preoperative versus intraoperative insertion of an intra-aortic balloon pump and 30-day mortality in a multivariable logistic regression analysis, including preoperative New York Heart Association class, postoperative atrial fibrillation, reoperation, postoperative creatinine and isolated coronary bypass grafting as cofactors. We used a multivariate linear model to assess whether a preoperative versus intraoperative intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with length of postoperative hospital stay, adjusting for reoperation, isolated coronary bypass grafting, heart valve surgery, sex, age, cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, preoperative patients’ status (elective, urgency or emergency surgery) and preoperative myocardial infarction.

Results

Overall, 7,540 consecutive patients underwent open heart surgery in our department, and an intra-aortic balloon pump was inserted pre- or intraoperatively in 322 (4.2%) patients. The mean age was 67 ± 10.2 years old, the 30-day mortality was 12.7%, and the median length of hospital stay was 9 days (7 - 13). Preoperative versus intraoperative intra-aortic balloon pump insertion did not affect the incidence of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.15 - 3.12; p = 0.63) and length of postoperative hospital stay (β = 5.3; 95%CI, -1.6 to 12.8; p = 0.13).

Conclusion

Preoperative insertion of an intra-aortic balloon pump was not associated with a lower 30-day mortality or reduced length of postoperative hospital stay compared to intraoperative insertion.

Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcome Between Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Infarct-Related Artery-Only Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock

Background

Data are limited regarding long‐term outcomes in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock according to revascularization strategy. We sought to compare the 3‐year clinical outcomes of patients with ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction multivessel disease with cardiogenic shock and patients with multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and infarct‐related artery (IRA)–only PCI.

Methods and Results

Of 13 104 patients from the nationwide, multicenter, prospective KAMIR‐NIH (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry––National Institutes of Health) registry, we selected 659 patients with ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction who had concomitant non‐IRA stenosis and presented with cardiogenic shock. The primary outcome was all‐cause death. Multivessel PCI was performed in 260 patients and IRA‐only PCI in 399 patients. At 3 years, patients in the multivessel PCI group had a lower risk of all‐cause death (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.94 [P=0.024]), all‐cause death or MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41–0.84 [P=0.004]), and non‐IRA repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10–0.50 [P<0.001]) than those in the IRA‐only PCI group. The results were consistent after confounder adjustment by propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analysis. Landmark analysis at 1 year demonstrated that the multivessel PCI group had a lower risk of recurrent MI and non‐IRA repeat revascularization beyond 1 year (log‐rank P=0.030 and P=0.017, respectively) than the IRA‐only PCI group.

Conclusions

In patients with ST‐segment‐elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk of all‐cause death than IRA‐only PCI at 3 years, suggesting potential benefit of non‐IRA revascularization during the index hospitalization to improve long‐term clinical outcomes.

Timing of initiation of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A meta-analysis

Background

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the optimal timing of the initiation of intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy remains unclear. Therefore, we performed the first meta‐analysis to compare the outcomes of IABP insertion before vs after primary PCI in this population.

Methods

Electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched from inception to April 1, 2019, to identify the eligible studies. The main outcomes were short‐term (in‐hospital or 30 days) and long‐term (≥ 6 months) mortality. In addition, pooled analysis of risk‐adjusted data were also performed to control for confounding factors.

Results

Seven observational studies and two sub‐analysis of randomized controlled trials involving 1348 patients were included. Compared to patients inserted IABP after PCI, patients who received IABP therapy before primary PCI had similar risks of short‐term (odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.59) and long‐term (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.68) all‐cause mortality. Moreover, a pooled analysis of risk‐adjusted data also found similar effects of the two therapies on short‐term (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.25) and long‐term (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.72) mortality. Besides, no significant difference was found between the two groups with respect to reinfarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, renal failure, and major bleeding.

Conclusions

The timing of the initiation of IABP therapy does not appear to impact short‐term and long‐term survival in patients with AMI complicated by CS undergoing primary PCI.

Utilization and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality despite recent advances in the temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. The current utilization and outcomes of these MCS devices with or without vasopressors compared with conventional medical therapy (no-MCS) in CS remain poorly described. The study population was extracted from the 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for CS, temporary MCS devices, and vasopressor infusion. Study end points included in-hospital all-cause mortality, length of index hospital stay (LOS), the likelihood of receiving invasive treatment, postprocedural bleeding, vascular complications, total hospitalization charges, and discharge disposition. A total of 59,148 discharges with a diagnosis of CS were identified (age 67 years; 38.5% female). Temporary MCS devices were utilized in 22.7%. The use of these devices was associated with lower in-hospital all-cause mortality (33.0% vs 39.7%, p <0.01), increased likelihood of invasive therapy (75.7% vs 26.3%, p <0.01), and increased likelihood of being discharged home (24.8% vs 20.6%, p <0.01). However, the MCS group had longer LOS (16.9 vs 12.1 days, p <0.01), higher vascular complications (2.6% vs 1.4%, p <0.01), bleeding (31.2% vs 16.8%, p <0.01), and total hospitalization charges ($374,574 vs $182,045, p <0.01). In conclusion, the use of the temporary MCS devices for the treatment of CS was associated with lower mortality, increased the likelihood of receiving invasive treatment and the likelihood of being discharged home. However, it was associated with higher in-hospital complications, LOS, and hospitalization charges.

Utilization of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Given the tremendous progress in interventional cardiology over the last decade, a growing number of older patients, who have more comorbidities and more complex coronary artery disease, are being considered for technically challenging and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The success of performing such complex PCI is increasingly dependent on the availability and improvement of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, which aim to provide hemodynamic support and left ventricular (LV) unloading to enable safe and successful coronary revascularization. MCS as an adjunct to high-risk PCI may, therefore, be an important component for improvement in clinical outcomes. MCS devices in this setting can be used for two main clinical conditions: patients who present with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and those undergoing technically complex and high-risk PCI without having overt cardiogenic shock. The current article reviews the advancement in the use of various devices in both AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock and complex high-risk PCI, highlights the available hemodynamic and clinical data associated with the use of MCS devices, and presents suggestive management strategies focusing on appropriate patient selection and optimal timing and support to potentially increase the clinical benefit from utilizing these devices during PCI in this high-risk group of patients.

Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction: What's New?

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion primarily due to cardiac dysfunction. This condition is the most common cause of death in patients affected by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite early revascularization, prompt optimal medical therapy, and up-to-date mechanical circulatory supports, mortality of patients with CS remains high.The objective of this review is to summarize epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment options of CS in light of the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. The latest European guidelines on myocardial revascularization have reviewed the previous guidelines with respect to early multivessel revascularization and routine use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with AMI-related CS.Most of the current evidences come partly from randomized trials, but mostly from observational registries because of the difficulty to test different treatments in this life-threatening clinical setting.Some of the latest studies highlight the potential crucial benefit of newly introduced mechanical circulatory support devices, although evidences are not sufficient to definitely assess the benefit/risk ratio of the different systems.Many questions remain unanswered in this field, and further trials are advocated to better elucidate the best medical, reperfusion, and circulatory support approaches aimed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with CS after AMI.

Predictors of Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (MI-CS) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Predictors of outcomes in MI-CS include clinical, laboratory, radiologic variables, and management strategies. This article reviews the existing literature on short- and long-term predictors and risk stratification in MI complicated by CS.

Controversies and Challenges in the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

The prognosis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction has improved with coronary care units, revascularization, and anticoagulant strategies; however, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a highly fatal condition. Controversies remain about optimal pharmacologic therapies, revascularization strategies, the role of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and evidence-based patient selection. The current informed consent paradigm for clinical trials creates challenges testing treatments in CS patients, who are too ill to consent and require immediate treatment. Several trials are underway comparing revascularization strategies and MCS options. Although the prognosis is grim, careful, new and existing treatments could change the course of this condition in the coming years.

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.

Efficacy of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump before versus after Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock from ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background:

Previous studies showed that patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) from ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) supported by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decreased the risk of in-hospital mortality than patients who received IABP after PCI. However, little evidence is available on the optimal order of IABP insertion and primary PCI. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the sequence of IABP support and PCI and its association with major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).

Methods:

Data were obtained from 218 consecutive patients with CS due to STEMI in Beijing Anzhen Hospital between 2008 and 2014, who were treated with IABP and PCI. The patients were divided into two groups: Group A in whom IABP received before PCI (n = 106) and Group B in whom IABP received after PCI (n = 112). We evaluated the myocardial perfusion using myocardial blush grade and resolution of ST-segment elevation. The primary endpoint was 12-month risk of MACCE.

Results:

Most baseline characteristics were similar in patients between the two groups. However, patients received IABP before PCI were associated with a delay of door-to-balloon time (DBT) and higher troponin I level (P < 0.05). However, myocardial perfusion was significantly improved in patients treated with IABP before PCI (P < 0.05). Overall, IABP support before PCI was not associated with significantly lower risk of MACCE (P > 0.05). In addition, risk of all-cause mortality, bleeding, and acute kidney injury (AKI) was similar between two groups (P > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that DBT (odds ratio [OR] 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–4.8, P = 0.04), IABP support after PCI (OR 5.7, 95% CI 2.7–8.4, P = 0.01), and AKI (OR 7.4, 95% CI 4.9–10.8, P = 0.01) were the independent predictors of mortality at 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions:

Early IABP insertion before primary PCI is associated with improved myocardial perfusion although DBT increases. IABP support before PCI does not confer a 12-month clinical benefit when used for STEMI with CS.

Short-term and long-term prognostic outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock undergoing early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the 30-day and long-term prognostic outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated with profound cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing early routine extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO)-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Between December 2005 and December 2014, 65 consecutive STEMI patients with profound CS underwent routine ECMO-supported primary PCI.

RESULTS

The incidences of acute pulmonary edema, respiratory failure with requirement of mechanical ventilatory support upon presentation, and 30-day mortality rate were 100%, 95.4%, and 43.1%, respectively. The duration of hospitalization, mean long-term follow-up, and survival rate were 32.1±53.1 (days), 733.6±986.7 (days), and 32.3%, respectively. The mean APACHE score (32.6±8.3 vs. 28.5±7.5), peak serum creatinine level (4.3±2.4 vs. 1.7±1.2mg/dL), incidences of failed ECMO weaning (57.1% vs. 0%), successful ECMO weaning but in-hospital death (40.0% vs. 0%) were significantly lower in 30-day survivors than those in non-survivors (all p<0.05), whereas final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI)-3 flow [53.6% vs. 91.9%] showed an opposite pattern compared to that of APACHE score in the two groups (p<0.02). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that unsuccessful reperfusion, failed ECMO weaning, and peak creatinine level were independent predictors of 30-day mortality (all p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Early ECMO-supported primary PCI in STEMI patients with profound CS was feasible as a life-saving strategy with acceptable 30-day and long-term prognostic outcomes.

Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: pharmacologic and mechanical hemodynamic support pathways

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is still the predominant cause of in-hospital death in patients with acute myocardial infarction, although mortality has been reduced in recent years. Early percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are causal therapies implemented in CS, supported by catecholamines, fluids, intra-aortic balloon pumping, and also active percutaneous assist devices. There is only limited evidence from randomized studies of any of these treatments in CS, except for early revascularization and the relative ineffectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumping. This review will present treatment pathways of CS complicating acute myocardial infarction, with a major focus on revascularization, intensive care unit treatment, and mechanical support devices.

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.

Continuous internal counterpulsation as a bridge to recovery in acute and chronic heart failure

Cardiac recovery from cardiogenic shock (CS) and end-stage chronic heart failure (HF) remains an often insurmountable therapeutic challenge. The counterpulsation technique exerts numerous beneficial effects on systemic hemodynamics and left ventricular mechanoenergetics, rendering it attractive for promoting myocardial recovery in both acute and chronic HF. Although a recent clinical trial has questioned the clinical effectiveness of short-term hemodynamic support with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP, the main representative of the counterpulsation technique) in CS complicating myocardial infarction, the issue remains open to further investigation. Moreover, preliminary data suggest that long-term IABP support in patients with end-stage HF is safe and may mediate recovery of left- or/and right-sided cardiac function, facilitating long-term weaning from mechanical support or enabling the application of other permanent, life-saving solutions. The potential of long-term counterpulsation could possibly be enhanced by implementation of novel, fully implantable counterpulsation devices.

2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care (Endorsed by the American Heart Association, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d'intervention)

Although historically the intra-aortic balloon pump has been the only mechanical circulatory support device available to clinicians, a number of new devices have become commercially available and have entered clinical practice. These include axial flow pumps, such as Impella(®); left atrial to femoral artery bypass pumps, specifically the TandemHeart; and new devices for institution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These devices differ significantly in their hemodynamic effects, insertion, monitoring, and clinical applicability. This document reviews the physiologic impact on the circulation of these devices and their use in specific clinical situations. These situations include patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, those presenting with cardiogenic shock, and acute decompensated heart failure. Specialized uses for right-sided support and in pediatric populations are discussed and the clinical utility of mechanical circulatory support devices is reviewed, as are the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Counterpulsation during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry

Background

Cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) era, randomized trials have not shown a survival benefit with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy. This differs to observational data which show a detrimental effect, potentially reflecting bias and confounding. Without robust and valid risk adjustment, findings from non-randomized studies may remain biased.

Methods

We compared long-term mortality following IABP therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing PPCI during 2008–2013 from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry. We addressed measured and unmeasured confounding using propensity score and instrumental variable methods.

Results

A total of 12,105 patients with STEMI were treated with PPCI during the study period. Of these, 700 patients (5.8%) had cardiogenic shock. Of the patients with cardiogenic shock, 255 patients (36%) received IABP therapy. Multivariable analyses identified IABP therapy to be associated with increased mortality up to 3 years (HR = 1.67, 95% CI:1.20–2.67, p<0.001). This association was lost in propensity-matched analyses (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.84–1.80, p = 0.288). When addressing measured and unmeasured confounders, instrumental variable analyses demonstrated that IABP therapy was not associated with mortality at 3 years (Δ = 16.7%, 95% CI: -12.7%, 46.1%, p = 0.281). Subgroup analyses demonstrated IABP was associated with increased mortality in non-diabetics; patients not undergoing multivessel intervention; patients without renal disease and patients not having received prior thrombolysis.

Conclusions

In this observational analysis of patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock, when adjusting for confounding, IABP therapy had a neutral effect with no association with long-term mortality. These findings differ to previously reported observational studies, but are in keeping with randomized trial data.

Is Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator a New Weapon to Improve Prognosis in Patients With Profound Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Despite advancements in pharmacological therapy and refinement of the tools and technique of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass surgery, patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by profound cardiogenic shock (CS) still have unacceptably high in-hospital mortality and unfavorable long-term outcome. Thus, there is an imminent need of a new and safe treatment modality in the management of AMI complicated by profound CS. Growing evidence suggests that extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO)-supported primary PCI is an effective therapeutic option for saving lives under such conditions. In this review, we describe and interpret the potential role of circulatory mechanical support by ECMO in the setting of AMI complicated by profound CS for improving clinical outcomes. (Circ J 2016; 80: 572-578).

Is Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Counterpulsation Sufficient to Treat Patients in Cardiogenic Shock, Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

A high number of patients do not survive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), even when assisted with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation. There is no accepted consensus on who may most benefit from IABP counterpulsation, although previous retrospective studies have reported predictors of survival for patients undergoing PCI and cardiac surgery. To date, a risk model for emergency primary PCI patients has not been ascertained. The objective of this study was to identify independent predictors for in-hospital survival, to create a standardized risk model to predict patients who may require IABP insertion during primary PCI.

Method

Retrospective data were from 165 patients who had undergone primary PCI with IABP due to CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), from September 2007 to 2010, and underwent logistic regression analysis, to evaluate the incremental risk factors associated with survival.

Results

The overall in-hospital mortality was 32.1% (53 patients). The incremental independent predictors for in-hospital survival were: patient age of less than 60 years (OR: 0.303, 95% CI: 0.11 - 0.83, P < 0.02) and the use of IABP support alone, as opposed to in adjunction with inotropic support (OR: 3.177, 95% CI: 1.159 - 8.708, P < 0.025).

Conclusion

This study illustrated an age of less than 60 years, and the use of IABP alone, to be independent predictors of in-hospital survival in patients with CS complicating AMI who undergo primary PCI assisted by IABP. No specific risk model could be determined.

Predictors of mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock remains the most serious complication of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Early revascularization is the cornerstone of invasive therapy, while mechanical support with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is debatable. From our institutional shock registry we sought to determine predictors of in-hospital mortality-including the aspect of IABP timing-and to develop a clinical risk score for shock patients with AMI.

METHODS

From January 2005 till December 2010, 102 patients with cardiogenic shock due to AMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and IABP were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis and receiver-operating curves were used to generate a mortality risk score.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 70.1 ± 11.0 years and 70 % were men. One third of patients had a non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and 30 % had to be resuscitated before coronary intervention. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 25 %. After admission, 23 % of patients developed an acute renal failure and 10 % needed renal dialysis during hospital stay. In 52 % of patients IABP therapy was initiated after primary PCI, while the remaining patients had an IABP-assisted primary PCI. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 40.2 %. Using multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.08, p = 0.006), resuscitation before PCI (OR 3.46, p = 0.045), vasopressor use (OR 7.88, p = 0.003), acute renal failure (OR 11.18, p = 0.001), and IABP implantation after PCI (OR 4.36, p = 0.011) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Based on these predictors, a mortality-risk score was calculated as follows: 1.5 × IABP timing before PCI + 0.1 × age + resuscitation before PCI + 2 × vasopressor use + 2.5 × acute renal failure. Using a cut-off value of 10.4, this score had a specificity of 83 % and a sensitivity of 82 % for prediction of in-hospital death.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified age, vasopressor use, resuscitation before PCI, acute renal failure and IABP implantation after PCI as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock due to AMI. The timing of IABP insertion was the only modifiable factor predicting in-hospital mortality in our cohort. Consequently, balloon pumping should be started before PCI to improve outcome of cardiogenic shock patients.

Clinical outcomes of the intra-aortic balloon pump for resuscitated patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiac arrest

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effects of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) before procedure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between November 2005 and April 2014, 49,542 patients were enrolled in a prospective cohort study for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Korea (KAMIR). CPR was performed in 1700 patients with cardiac arrest. Patients were excluded from the study if they had not undergone a coronary angiogram, if extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or thrombolysis was performed, and if mechanical complications presented. The primary end point was 1-month all-cause mortality. A total of 883 patients in the IABP group and 476 in the control group were included. During the 1-month follow-up, all-cause death occurred in 749 patients (55.1%). The IABP group was predominantly male and had a higher prevalence of ST-segment elevation MI and a higher risk of coronary lesions including left main disease and three-vessel disease. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor was administered less in the non-IABP group. In the total population, the IABP group had worse outcomes in terms of mortality rates after multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.47, p=0.034] without increasing the incidence of recurrent MI, stroke, and major bleeding. After propensity matching with a pair of 452 patients, no significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics or clinical outcomes (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.93-1.57, p=0.158).

CONCLUSION

The use of IABP did not show clinical benefits in patients with AMI complicated by severe cardiogenic shock after propensity matching analysis.

Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices and ECMO in the Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

The successful treatment of acute decompensated heart failure continues to evolve with an increasing utilization of nondurable mechanical support devices. Indications for acute support have broadened to include their use as a bridge to recovery or decision (for durable ventricular assist devices [VADs] or heart transplant). Available devices have improved in terms of effectiveness, ease of insertion, and reduction in complications. The commonly used devices (intra-aortic balloon pump, TandemHeart, Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuit), together with their mechanisms of action, are reviewed. Current considerations for support, specific to each device, are examined and future directions and indications for percutaneous VADs are explored.

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.

Management of cardiogenic shock

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of death in patients with acute myocardial infarction although mortality could be reduced from formerly ∼80% to 40-50%. In addition to percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, catecholamines, fluids, intraaortic balloon pumping (IABP), and also active assist devices are widely used for CS management. However, there is only limited evidence for any of the above treatments except for early revascularization and the relative ineffectiveness of IABP. This updated review will therefore outline the management of CS complicating acute myocardial infarction with major focus on evidence-based revascularization techniques, intensive care unit treatment including ventilation, transfusion regimens, adjunctive medication, and mechanical 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.