Contemporary applications of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation for cardiogenic shock: a "real world" experience

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.

Early intra-aortic balloon pump in acute decompensated heart failure complicated by cardiogenic shock: Rationale and design of the randomized Altshock-2 trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a systemic disorder associated with dismal short-term prognosis. Given its time-dependent nature, mechanical circulatory support may improve survival. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) had gained widespread use because of the easiness to implant and the low rate of complications; however, a randomized trial failed to demonstrate benefit on mortality in the setting of acute myocardial infarction. Acute decompensated heart failure with cardiogenic shock (ADHF-CS) represents a growing resource-intensive scenario with scant data and indications on the best management. However, a few data suggest a potential benefit of IABP in this setting. We present the design of a study aimed at addressing this research gap.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The Altshock-2 trial is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label study with blinded adjudicated evaluation of outcomes. Patients with ADHF-CS will be randomized to early IABP implantation or to vasoactive treatments. The primary end point will be 60 days patients' survival or successful bridge to heart replacement therapy. The key secondary end point will be 60-day overall survival; 60-day need for renal replacement therapy; in-hospital maximum inotropic score, maximum duration of inotropic/vasopressor therapy, and maximum sequential organ failure assessment score. Safety end points will be in-hospital occurrence of bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium >3), vascular access complications and systemic (noncerebral) embolism. The sample size for the study is 200 patients.

IMPLICATIONS

The Altshock-2 trial will provide evidence on whether IABP should be implanted early in ADHF-CS patients to improve their clinical outcomes.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for refractory heart failure: the German Heart Center Berlin experience

Background

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) offers a valuable option for treatment of refractory heart failure. We present our experience with selected MCS devices in cardiogenic shock of different etiologies.

Methods

We retrospectively studied patients who were treated in our institution between 01/2016 and 07/2018. Patients receiving only veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support were excluded. Left ventricular support patients received Impella; right ventricular support was conducted using Levitronix CentriMag.

Results

Thirty-seven patients received an Impella left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Etiology was: acute on chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICMP; n=12), acute myocardial infarction (AMI; n=11), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCMP; n=7) and toxic cardiomyopathy (TCMP; n=2). Two patients presented with postcardiotomy shock and acute myocarditis, respectively. In one case, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy was diagnosed. Impella was used solely in 28 patients (Impella group) with an in-hospital survival of 37%. In nine patients, Impella was used in combination with extracorporeal life support (ECLS) implantation (ECMELLA group)-in-hospital survival was 33%. In the Impella group six patients recovered, six received a long-term VAD and 16 died on device. In the ECMELLA group one patient recovered, three received a long-term VAD and five died. The majority of CentriMag implantations as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) were necessary after LVAD implantation (n=52); of these patients, 14 recovered, eight received long-term VAD and 30 died. The remaining 17 patients were supported by RVAD due to AMI (n=7); postcardiotomy (n=7); right heart failure after heart transplantation (n=2) and ICMP (n=1). Six of these patients recovered, two required long-term VAD and nine died.

Conclusions

Survival after MCS implantation for left as well as right heart failure in cardiogenic shock remains low, but is superior to that of patients without mechanical support. Short-term MCS remains an option of choice if right, left or biventricular support is needed.