Intra-aortic balloon pump versus percutaneous Impella© in emergency revascularisation for myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: systematic review

Perfusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026765912110370
Author(s):  
Kristina Frain ◽  
Paul Rees
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives: Mortality rates in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) remain persistently high despite advances over the past decade in percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. This systematic review aims to analyse the existing literature to compare mortality outcomes in patients mechanically supported by intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous Impella 2.5/CP© for AMI-CS undergoing emergency revascularisation. Methods: The following MeSH terms were applied to the databases Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science: ‘Intra-aortic balloon pump’, ‘Impella’, ‘Cardiogenic shock’, ‘Myocardial Infarction’ and ‘Mortality’. This yielded 2643 studies. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the studies were initially screened by title and abstract before full text analysis. Results: Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria: two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 observational studies. Data from a total of 21,006 patients were included across the studies. Notably, one study claimed reduced mortality with IABP versus control, and one study concluded that Impella© improved survival rates over the IABP. The average 30-day all-cause mortality in patients supported by IABP was 38.1%, 54.3% in Impella© groups and 39.4% in control groups. Conclusion: AMI-CS presents an important cohort of patients in whom conducting RCTs is difficult. As a result, the literature is limited. Analysis of the available literature suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support superior survival in those supported by IABP or Impella© when compared to control despite suggestions that the Impella© offers superior haemodynamic support. Limitations of the studies have been discussed to outline suggestions for future research.

Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock Following an Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 743-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Caceres ◽  
Fardad Esmailian ◽  
Jaime D. Moriguchi ◽  
Francisco A. Arabia ◽  
Lawrence S. Czer
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Circulatory Support

scholarly journals Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Behnam Tehrani ◽  
Alexander Truesdell ◽  
Ramesh Singh ◽  
Charles Murphy ◽  
Patricia Saulino
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Acute Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Decompensated Heart Failure ◽  
Circulatory Support

BACKGROUND The development and implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock initiative focused on increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and hemodynamic-guided management and improvement of outcomes in cardiogenic shock. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are (1) to collect retrospective clinical outcomes for acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, and compare current versus historical survival rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate Inova Heart and Vascular Institute site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017; (3) to compare outcomes related to early implementation of mechanical circulatory support and hemodynamic-guided management versus historical controls; (4) to assess survival to discharge rate in patients receiving intervention from the designated shock team and (5) create a clinical archive of Cardiogenic Shock patient characteristics for future analysis and the support of translational research studies. METHODS This is an observational, retrospective, single center study. Retrospective and prospective data will be collected in patients treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute with documented cardiogenic shock as a result of acute decompensated heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. This registry will include data from patients prior to and after the initiation of the multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. Clinical outcomes associated with early multidisciplinary team intervention will be analyzed. In the study group, all patients evaluated for documented cardiogenic shock (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute by the Cardiogenic Shock team will be included. An additional historical Inova Heart and Vascular Institute control group will be analyzed as a comparator. Means with standard deviations will be reported for outcomes. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be presented. For continuous variables, the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum will be reported. Reported differences will include standard errors and 95% CI. RESULTS Preliminary data analysis for the year 2017 has been completed. Compared to a baseline 2016 survival rate of 47.0%, from 2017 to 2018, CS survival rates were increased to 57.9% (58/110) and 81.3% (81/140), respectively (P=.01 for both). Study data will continue to be collected until December 31, 2018. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary results of this study demonstrate that the INOVA SHOCK team approach to the treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with early team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodynamic-guided management, and strict protocol adherence is associated with superior clinical outcomes: survival to discharge and overall survival when compared to 2015 and 2016 outcomes prior to Shock team initiation. What may limit the generalization of these results of this study to other populations are site specific; expertise of the team, strict algorithm adherence based on the INOVA SHOCK protocol, and staff commitment to timely team activation. Retrospective clinical outcomes (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) demonstrated an increase in current survival rates when compared to pre-Cardiogenic Shock team initiation, rapid team activation and diagnosis and timely utilization of mechanical circulatory support. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03378739; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/701vstDGd)

scholarly journals Haemodynamic efficacy of microaxial left ventricular assist device in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 179-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. I. M. van Dort ◽  
K. R. A. H. Peij ◽  
O. C. Manintveld ◽  
S. E. Hoeks ◽  
W. J. Morshuis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Wall Stress ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Cardiac Power ◽  
Department Of Health

AbstractThe Impella percutaneous mechanical circulatory support device is designed to augment cardiac output and reduce left ventricular wall stress and aims to improve survival in cases of cardiogenic shock. In this meta-analysis we investigated the haemodynamic effects of the Impella device in a clinical setting. We systematically searched all articles in PubMed/Medline and Embase up to July 2019. The primary outcomes were cardiac power (CP) and cardiac power index (CPI). Survival rates and other haemodynamic data were included as secondary outcomes. For the critical appraisal, we used a modified version of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services quality assessment form. The systematic review included 12 studies with a total of 596 patients. In 258 patients the CP and/or CPI could be extracted. Our meta-analysis showed an increase of 0.39 W [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24, 0.54], (p = 0.01) and 0.22 W/m2 (95% CI: 0.18, 0.26), (p < 0.01) for the CP and CPI, respectively. The overall survival rate was 56% (95% CI: 0.50, 0.62), (p = 0.09). The quality of the studies was moderate, mostly due to the presence of confounders. Our study suggests that in patients with cardiogenic shock, Impella support seems effective in augmenting CP(I). This study merely investigates the haemodynamic effectiveness of the Impella device and does not reflect the complete clinical impact for the patient.

scholarly journals Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock due to Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Marius Andrei Zavalichi ◽  
Ionut Nistor ◽  
Alina-Elena Nedelcu ◽  
Simona Daniela Zavalichi ◽  
Cătălina Marina Arsenescu Georgescu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Reperfusion Therapy ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
The Impact

Background. Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality, despite new strategies for reperfusion therapy. Short-term circulatory support devices may provide adequate support for appropriate myocardial and organ perfusion. Objectives. This review is aimed at evaluating the impact on survival when using venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods. We performed a systematic review that included studies using V-A ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock. Time on ECMO, side effects, and the number of deceased patients, transplanted or upgraded to durable assist devices were analysed. Literature search was done using PubMed/MEDLINE (inception (1969) to January 10, 2019), ProQuest (inception (January 14, 1988) to January 10, 2019), and clinicaltrials.gov (inception (September 12, 2005) to January 10, 2019), by 2 authors. This protocol is registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42019123982). Results. We included 9 studies with a total of 1,998 adult patients receiving V-A ECMO for AMI-induced cardiogenic shock. Survival rate varied from 30.0% to 79.2% at discharge and from 23.2% to 36.1% at 12 months. Time on ECMO varied between 1.96 and 6.0 days. Reported serious adverse events were gastrointestinal bleeding (3.6%) and peripheral complications (8.5%). Conclusion. The use of V-A ECMO among patients with AMI-induced cardiogenic shock may provide survival benefits. However, V-A ECMO treatment effects are inconclusive because of limitations in cohort design and reporting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document