Improvement in Biventricular Cardiac Function After Ambulatory Counterpulsation

Future Devices for Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options include intra-aortic balloon pump, transvalvular axial flow pumps, left atrial to femoral artery pumping, and oxygenated right atrium to femoral artery circuits. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices providing greater support have not proven superiority over the intra-aortic balloon pump. Novel counterpulsation devices target durability and ambulatory capability and direct unloading of left ventricle (LV) and right ventricle. Device innovations in transvalvular axial pumping include miniaturization of partial-support devices and development of larger self-expanding devices for near-complete LV support. Aortic entrainment pumping is a novel mode of blood displacement with potential benefits beyond reduced LV afterload.

Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life With an Ambulatory Counterpulsation Pump in Advanced Heart Failure Patients

Background:

The NuPulseCV intravascular ventricular assist system (iVAS) provides extended duration ambulatory counterpulsation via a durable pump placed through the distal subclavian artery.

Methods:

We performed a prospective, single-arm, multicenter, US Food and Drug Administration-approved feasibility trial of iVAS therapy as a bridge to transplant or decision following the FIH (First-In-Human) trial.

Results:

Forty-seven patients were enrolled, and 45 patients (median 61 years old, 37 males, and 30 listed on United Network of Organ Sharing) received iVAS support for median 44 (25–87) days. There were no intraoperative complications. Success was defined as survival or transplant on iVAS therapy free from disabling stroke. Outcome success at 30 days (the primary end point of this study) and at 6 months was 89% and 80%, respectively. During 6 months of iVAS support, 2 patients died and 2 patients experienced disabling neurological dysfunction. Six-minute walk distance, 2-minute step test, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improved during 4-week iVAS support.

Conclusions:

This feasibility trial demonstrated promising short-term outcomes of iVAS therapy with improved functional capacity and quality of life during the therapy.

Registration:

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02645539.

Comparison of the Hemodynamic Response to Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Resulting from Acute Myocardial Infarction Versus Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) neither benefits nor harms patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with cardiogenic shock (CS) but may stabilize those with chronic heart failure who decompensate into CS. We sought to compare its hemodynamic effects in these 2 populations. We performed a retrospective analysis of the hemodynamic effects of IABP for AMI or acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) patients with hemodynamic evidence of CS. The primary outcome was cardiac output (CO) change following insertion. In total, 205 patients were treated for CS resulting from AMI (73; 35.6%) or ADHF (132; 64.4%). At baseline, both cohorts had significant hemodynamic compromise with mean arterial pressure 75.6 ± 12.3 mm Hg, CO 3.02 ± 0.84 L/min, and cardiac power index 0.26 ± 0.06 W/m²; these parameters were nearly identical between groups though ADHF-CS patients had a higher pre-IABP mean pulmonary artery (PA) pressure than AMI-CS patients. After IABP insertion, ADHF-CS patients had moderate CO augmentation whereas AMI-CS experienced almost no improvement (0.58 ± 0.79 L/min vs 0.12 ± 1.00 L/min; p = 0.0009). Intracardiac filling pressures were reduced by similar amounts in both cohorts. Systemic vascular resistance was reduced in patients with ADHF-CS but not in those with AMI-CS. In conclusion, following IABP insertion, ADHF-CS patients experience roughly a 5-fold greater CO augmentation compared with AMI-CS patients. Pre-IABP PA pressure differences and differential systemic vascular resistance reduction may explain these results and shed light on recent evidence supporting IABP use in ADHF-CS and curbing it in AMI-CS.