Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: Current indications and recommendations

Heart

Volumn 98, Issue 16, 2012, Pages 1246-1254

  Ouweneel, Dagmar M ^a   Henriques, José P S ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INOTROPIC AGENT; NITRIC OXIDE SYNTHASE; VASOPRESSIN DERIVATIVE;

AORTA BALLOON; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CARDIOVASCULAR EQUIPMENT; CONTRACTION BAND NECROSIS; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; EXTRACORPOREAL OXYGENATION; HEART INFARCTION; HEART MUSCLE NECROSIS; HEART MUSCLE OXYGEN CONSUMPTION; HEART OUTPUT; HEART PROTECTION; HEART VENTRICLE ARRHYTHMIA; HEMODYNAMIC PARAMETERS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE; MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT INDICATION;

CARDIOTONIC AGENTS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION; HEART-ASSIST DEVICES; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON PUMPING; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SHOCK, CARDIOGENIC; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VENTRICULAR FUNCTION, LEFT;

EID: 84864339494     PISSN: 13556037     EISSN: 1468201X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-301963     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation 2009;119 :1211-19.
2. Reynolds HR, Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation 2008;117:686-97.
3. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 1999;341:625-34. ▶ Large randomised controlled trial in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock comparing early revascularisation and initial medical stabilisation in the setting of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
4. Menon V, Hochman JS. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Heart 2002;88:531-7. (Pubitemid 35221973)
5. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011;124:e574-651.
6. Meyns B, Stolinski J, Leunens V, et al. Left ventricular support by catheter-mounted axial flow pump reduces infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:1087-95. (Pubitemid 36384893)
7. Fincke R, Hochman JS, Lowe AM, et al. Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:340-8. (Pubitemid 38950593)
8. Scheidt S, Wilner G, Mueller H, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in cardiogenic shock. Report of a co-operative clinical trial. N Engl J Med 1973;288:979-84.
9. Patel MR, Smalling RW, Thiele H, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and infarct size in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction without shock: the CRISP AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2011;306:1329-37.
10. Prondzinsky R, Lemm H, Swyter M, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med 2010;38:152-60.
11. Sjauw KD, Engstrom AE, Vis MM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? Eur Heart J 2009;30:459-68. ▶ Meta-analysis evaluating the use of IABP in STEMI patients with and without cardiogenic shock.
12. Unverzagt S, Machemer MT, Solms A, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(7):CD007398.
13. Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, et al. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2005;26 :1276-83. ▶ Randomised controlled trial comparing TandemHeart and IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock after an acute myocardial infarction, showing improved haemodynamic parameters, similar 30-day mortality but a higher complication rate with TandemHeart.
14. Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, et al. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 2006;152:469.e1-8. ▶ Randomised controlled trial comparing TandemHeart and IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock after an acute myocardial infarction, showing improved haemodynamic parameters with TandemHeart but similar 30-day mortality and severe adverse event rates.
15. Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, et al. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:688-96. ▶ The largest registry study of the TandemHeart in cardiogenic shock (n=117) showing improved haemodynamic parameters in patients refractory to IABP and vasopressor support.
16. Henriques JP, Remmelink M, Baan J Jr, et al. Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5. Am J Cardiol 2006;97:990-2.
17. Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L, et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (the PROTECT I Trial): initial U.S. experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2:91-6.
18. Meyns B, Dens J, Sergeant P, et al. Initial experiences with the Impella device in patients with cardiogenic shockd - mpella support for cardiogenic shock. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 51:312-17. (Pubitemid 38031386)
19. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al . A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1584-8. ▶ Prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing Impella 2.5 and IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock after an acute myocardial infarction, showing improved haemodynamic parameters with Impella 2.5 but similar 30-day mortality.
20. Engstrom AE, Sjauw KD, Baan J, et al. Long-term safety and sustained left ventricular recovery: long-term results of percutaneous left ventricular support with Impella LP2.5 in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention 2011; 6:860-5.
21. Sjauw KD, Remmelink M, Baan J Jr, et al. Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:1044-6. (Pubitemid 351318126)
22. Engstrom AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, et al. The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med 2011;39:2072-9. ▶ Retrospective evaluation of Impella 2.5 and 5.0 in patients with severe cardiogenic shock.
23. Siegenthaler MP, Brehm K, Strecker T, et al. The Impella Recover microaxial left ventricular assist device reduces mortality for postcardiotomy failure: a three-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;127:812-22. (Pubitemid 38316188)
24. Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2501-55.
25. Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2009;30:2102-8. ▶ Meta-analysis comparing TandemHeart and Impella 25 with IABP in cardiogenic shock patients using three randomised trials.
26. Naidu SS. Novel percutaneous cardiac assist devices: the science of and indications for hemodynamic support. Circulation 2011; 123 :533-43.
27. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;143:4-34.