Experience of using intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during coronary bypass surgery and coronary stenting in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and mitral regurgitation of ischemic genesis

AIM: To analyze the changes in the degree of mitral regurgitation (MR) of ischemic origin and of clinical outcomes in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and multi-vascular coronary artery disease during use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of the treatment of 186 patients with ischemic mitral insufficiency who underwent intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation as a preoperative preparation in connection with a low LVEF were outlined in this manuscript. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 included 132 patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery while Group 2 included 54 patients who underwent coronary artery stenting. The dynamics of MR and LVEF before and after left ventricular revascularization were studied on the basis of echocardiographic data. RESULTS: In group 1, there was a decrease in the degree of mitral regurgitation by 58% using IABC (p 0.05) in the early postoperative period (based on the measurement of vena contracta, v.c., the width of the regurgitation jet on the valve), and by 54% (p 0.05) in more than 6 months following surgical treatment. In group 2, there was a significant decrease in the degree of MR (based on v.c.) by 42% (p 0.05) in the early postoperative period and by 41% (p 0.05) in more than 6 months following surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with low LVEF, moderate and severe MI, and with significant coronary artery pathology, led to the reduction in the duration of surgical treatment and the time of using artificial blood circulation through by excluding the need for the correction of MI, both directly during surgical revascularization and in the long-term period (more than 6 months).

The Preference, Effect, and Prognosis of Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Backgrounds. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation is increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The aim of this study was to explore the preference, effect, and prognosis of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock patients. Methods. Data of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock patients at the Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital were collected retrospectively. A propensity score was calculated with a logistic regression which contained clinically meaningful variables and variables selected by Lasso and then used to match the control group. The cumulative incidence curve and Gray’s test were employed to analyse the effect and prognosis of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation on mortality. Results. A total of 1962 acute myocardial infarction cases admitted between May 2015 and November 2018 were identified, and 223 cases with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock were included as the study cohort, which contained 34 cases that received IABP and 189 cases that did not receive IABP. Patients with higher alanine aminotransferase ( OR = 1.93 , 95% CI 1.29-2.98), higher triglyceride ( OR = 3.71 , 95% CI 1.87-7.95), and higher blood glucose ( OR = 1.08 , 95% CI 0.99-1.18) had a higher probability of receiving intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. In the propensity score matching analysis, 34 cases received intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and 102 matched controls were included in the comparison. By comparing the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality, there was no statistically significant difference between the intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation group and matched control group ( P = 0.454 ). Conclusion. The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation may not improve the prognosis of the acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock patients.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation: current evidence-based and unresolved issues

<p>This literature review provides the current evidence-based research regarding the role of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in the treatment of patients in various clinical situations. These include patients with acute coronary syndrome, complicated or uncomplicated by cardiogenic shock, accompanied by high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions, accompanying patients in need of coronary artery bypass surgery in various conditions as a ‘bridge’ to decision-making or treatment. Because the introduction of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation into clinical practice, it has been the most common method of hemodynamic support in high-risk patients. The classical strategy for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction has evolved over the last decade from a thrombolysis scenario to a primary coronary revascularisation scenario, which resulted in a larger patient cohort. The currently available data, however, do not support the routine use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation by most of this population. Current studies have shown that the use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation did not lead to a decrease in 30-day mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock who received therapy with the strategy of early myocardial revascularisation as the planned primary goal. The expediency of using high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention as an accompanying method is ambiguous, whereas the use of the method as a ‘bridge’ to surgical myocardial revascularisation may be justified and requires additional research. The article provides the current recommendations for the treatment of patients. Research results and unresolved issues are being discussed.</p><p>Received 3 June 2020. Revised 4 August 2020. Accepted 24 August 2020.</p><p><strong>Funding:</strong> The study did not have sponsorship.</p><p><strong>Conflict of interest:</strong> Authors declare no conflict of interest.</p>

Comparison of Safety between Different Kinds of Heparins in Patients Receiving Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

Background The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of low molecular-weight-heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients receiving intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP). Materials and Methods We retrospectively analyzed a total of 344 patients receiving IABP for cardiogenic shock, severe heart failure, ventricular septal rupture, or mitral valve prolapse due to AMI. A total of 161 patients received UFH (a bolus injection 70 U/kg immediately after IABP, followed by infusion at a rate of 15 U/kg/hour and titration to for 50 to 70 seconds of activated partial thromboplastin time. A total of 183 patients received LMWH (subcutaneous injection of 1.0 mg/kg every 12 hours for 5 to 7 days and 1.0 mg/kg every 24 hours thereafter). Events of ischemia, arterial thrombosis or embolism, and bleeding during IABP were evaluated. Major bleeding was defined as a hemoglobin decrease by >50 g/L (vs. prior to IABP) or bleeding that caused hemodynamic shock or life-threatening or requiring blood transfusion. Results Subjects receiving UFH and LMWH did not differ in baseline characteristics. Ischemia was noted in five (3.1%) and two (1.1%) subjects in UFH and LMWH groups, respectively. Arterial thromboembolism occurred in three (1.9%) subjects in the UFH group, but not in the LMWH group. Logistic regression analysis failed to reveal an association between ischemia or bleeding with heparin type. Major bleeding occurred in 16 (9.9%) and six (3.3%) patients in the UFH and LWMH groups, respectively (p = 0.014). Regression analysis indicated that LMWH is associated with less major bleeding. Conclusion LMWH could reduce the risk of major bleeding in patients receiving IABP. Whether LMWH could reduce arterial thromboembolism needs further investigation.