Dataset Information

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

ABSTRACT: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can result in complications due to increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are both considered to be effective means of LV unloading. This study describes the efficacy of LV unloading and related outcomes with PVAD or IABP during ECLS. From January 2010 to April 2018, all cardiogenic shock patients who underwent ECLS plus simultaneous PVAD or IABP were analyzed. Forty-nine patients received ECLS + PVAD, while 91 received ECLS + IABP. At 48 hours, mean pulmonary artery pressure was significantly reduced in both groups [34?mm Hg to 22, p < 0.01; 32?mm Hg to 21, p < 0.01; ECLS + PVAD and ECLS + IABP group, respectively]. The two groups had similar 30 day survival rates [19 patients (39%) vs. 35 (39%), p = 0.56]. The ECLS + PVAD group had higher incidences of bleeding at the insertion site [11 (22%) vs. 0, p < 0.01] and major hemolysis [9 (18%) vs. 0, p < 0.01]. Both groups had improvement in LV end-diastolic dimension (61?±?12?mm to 54?±?12, p = 0.03; 60?±?12?mm to 47?±?10, p < 0.01), and LV ejection fraction (16?±?7% to 22?±?10, p < 0.01; 22?±?12% to 29?±?15, p = 0.01). Both ECLS + PVAD and ECLS + IABP effectively reduced pulmonary artery pressure and improved LV function. Bleeding at the PVAD or IABP insertion site occurred more frequently in the ECLS + PVAD group than the ECLS + IABP group (p < 0.01). Nine patients (18%) in the ECLS + PVAD group experienced major hemolysis, while there was no hemolysis in the ECLS + IABP group (p < 0.01). Careful considerations are required before selecting an additional support to ECLS.

SUBMITTER: Nakajima T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7745888 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

Nakajima Tomohiro T Tanaka Yuki Y Fischer Irene I Kotkar Kunal K Damiano Ralph J RJ Moon Marc R MR Masood Muhammad F MF Itoh Akinobu A

ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992) 20210101 1

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) can result in complications due to increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are both considered to be effective means of LV unloading. This study describes the efficacy of LV unloading and related outcomes with PVAD or IABP during ECLS. From January 2010 to April 2018, all cardiogenic shock patients who underwent ECLS plus simultaneous PVAD or IABP were analyzed. Forty-nine ...[more]

PMID: 33346989

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide greater hemodynamic support as compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), little is known about clinical outcomes associated with intravascular microaxial LVAD use in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo examine outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices.Design, setting, and participantsA propensity-matched registry-based retrospective cohort study of patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, who were included in data from hospitals participating in the CathPCI and the Chest Pain-MI registries, both part of the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients receiving an intravascular microaxial LVAD were matched with those receiving IABP on demographics, clinical history, presentation, infarct location, coronary anatomy, and clinical laboratory data, with final follow-up through December 31, 2017.ExposuresHemodynamic support, categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD use only, IABP only, other (such as use of a percutaneous extracorporeal ventricular assist system, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a combination of MCS device use), or medical therapy only.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital major bleeding.ResultsAmong 28 304 patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (12.6) years, 67.0% were men, 81.3% had an ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 43.3% had cardiac arrest. Over the study period among patients with AMI, an intravascular microaxial LVAD was used in 6.2% of patients, and IABP was used in 29.9%. Among 1680 propensity-matched pairs, there was a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death associated with use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage points {95% CI, 7.6-14.2}; P < .001) and also higher risk of in-hospital major bleeding (intravascular microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage points [95% CI, 12.5-18.2]; P < .001). These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients received a device before or after initiation of PCI.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock from 2015 to 2017, use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD compared with IABP was associated with higher adjusted risk of in-hospital death and major bleeding complications, although study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Further research may be needed to understand optimal device choice for these patients.

Project description:Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, Richardt G, Hennersdorf M, Empen K, Fuernau G, Desch S, Eitel I, Hambrecht R, Fuhrmann J, Böhm M, Ebelt H, Schneider S, Schuler G, Werdan K; IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators: Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:1287-1296.In the current international guidelines, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation is considered a class I treatment for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials.To test the hypothesis that IABP counterpulsation, as compared with the best available medical therapy alone, results in a reduction in mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom early revascularization is planned.Randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial.Thirty-seven centers in Germany.All adults had acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock and were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery).After enrollment, 600 patients were randomly assigned to intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no IABP counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients).The primary efficacy endpoint is 30-day all-cause mortality.At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary endpoints or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function.The use of IABP counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

Publications

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure