Abstract

Despite advances in coronary revascularization and widespread use of primary percutaneous interventions, cardiogenic shock complicating an acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (CSMI) remains a clinical challenge with high mortality rates. Conservative management with catecholamines is associated with serious limitations, including arrhythmias, increased myocardial oxygen consumption, and inadequate circulatory support. Clinicians have therefore turned to mechanical means of circulatory support. Circulatory assist systems for CSMI can be distinguished by the method of placement (i.e. percutaneous vs. surgical), the type of circulatory support (i.e. left ventricular, right ventricular, or biventricular pressure and/or volume unloading), and whether they are combined with extracorporal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The percutaneous assist systems most commonly used in CSMI are the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), venoarterial ECMO, the Impella pump, and the TandemHeart. Decades of clinical studies and experience demonstrated haemodynamic improvement, including elevation of diastolic perfusion pressure and cardiac output. Recently, the large randomized IABP-Shock II Trial did not show a significant reduction in 30-day mortality in CSMI with IABP insertion. There are no randomized study data available for ECMO use in CSMI. Both the Impella pump and the TandemHeart did not reduce 30-day mortality when compared with IABP in small randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In conclusion, despite the need for effective mechanical circulatory support in CSMI, current devices, as tested, have not been demonstrated to improve short- or long-term survival rates. RCTs testing the optimal timing of device therapy and optimal device design are needed to improve outcomes in CSMI.

Introduction

Cardiogenic shock, the most severe form of acute heart failure, is characterized by (i) myocardial contractile dysfunction resulting in the inability of the left ventricle to maintain adequate cardiac output (i.e. CI <2.2 L min−1) despite normal or elevated pre-load (i.e. normal circulatory blood volume, PCWP greater than or equal to 15 to 18 mmHg) and (ii) clinical signs of peripheral tissue hypoperfusion as evidenced by decreased urine output, altered mental status, and/or cold extremities. In recent studies of cardiogenic shock, eligibility criteria included systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg for >30 min or catecholamines required to maintain systolic pressure >90 mmHg plus clinical signs of pulmonary congestion and impaired organ perfusion with at least one of the following criteria: (i) altered mental status; (ii) cold, clammy skin and extremities; (iii) oliguria with urine output <30 mL h−1; or (iv) serum lactate >2.0 mmol L−1.1

Despite the technical advances in cardiology, cardiogenic shock as a complication of acute myocardial infarction (CSMI) remains an unresolved medical challenge. The last significant innovation resulting in a decline in mortality from cardiogenic shock—early reperfusion of the infarct-related coronary artery by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)2—is more than 10 years old. Despite use of coronary intervention, improved antithrombotic regimens, and significant advances in cardiac intensive care medicine, mortality rates remain unacceptably high at over 40% (Figure 1).3,4 In contrast to cardiogenic shock due to other causes (e.g. acute myocarditis, acute valvular heart disease, congenital heart disease, etc.), CSMI with severe systolic contractile dysfunction comprises a relatively homogenous population in which treatment options can be tested in randomized trials. Hence, this review will focus on this patient group.

Figure 1

Time trends in hospital case fatality rates (CFR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction ± cardiogenic shock in the Worcester (MA, USA) metropolitan area. Despite the survival improvement resulting from more widespread use of acute interventional reperfusion strategies, overall cardiogenic shock mortality rates remain high at over 40%. The additional columns (from left to right) represent mortality rates from (A) the SHOCK study2 (dark grey column: IMS, Initial Medical Stabilisation Group; light grey column: ERV, Early Revascularisation Group); (B) the TRIUMPH Study52 [all patients with ERV; with (dark grey column) or without (light grey column) the nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitor Tilarginine]; and (C) the IABP SHOCK II Trial4 [all patients with ERV; with (dark grey column) or without (light grey column) intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP)]. Modified from Goldberg et al.80

Figure 1

Time trends in hospital case fatality rates (CFR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction ± cardiogenic shock in the Worcester (MA, USA) metropolitan area. Despite the survival improvement resulting from more widespread use of acute interventional reperfusion strategies, overall cardiogenic shock mortality rates remain high at over 40%. The additional columns (from left to right) represent mortality rates from (A) the SHOCK study2 (dark grey column: IMS, Initial Medical Stabilisation Group; light grey column: ERV, Early Revascularisation Group); (B) the TRIUMPH Study52 [all patients with ERV; with (dark grey column) or without (light grey column) the nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitor Tilarginine]; and (C) the IABP SHOCK II Trial4 [all patients with ERV; with (dark grey column) or without (light grey column) intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP)]. Modified from Goldberg et al.80

The failure of pharmacological therapy to maintain adequate perfusion and to prevent irreversible end-organ failure in many patients with cardiogenic shock has led to attempts to improve the circulation and outcomes by mechanical circulatory support devices.5 Recently, the IABP-Shock II Trial did not demonstrate improvement in 30-day survival after implantation of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with CSMI.4 It is therefore timely to reassess existing and future devices that provide circulatory support. How do they differ in concept? What increase in cardiac output can be achieved? What are the typical device-related complications, and how do they compare with the clinical benefits as seen in prospective trials?

Prognosis of post-infarction cardiogenic shock and predictors of survival

Predictors of survival in cardiogenic shock: haemodynamic impairment and/or multiorgan dysfunction syndrome?

Analysing the results of 1600 patients from the SHOCK trial and registry6 and from the TRIUMPH trial,7 the following mortality risk factors have been identified by multivariate modelling: age, anoxic brain damage, end-organ hypoperfusion, stroke work, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, systolic blood pressure, vasopressor support, and creatinine clearance. However, cardiogenic shock is not a mere decrease in cardiac contractile function, but also a multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (MODS) resulting from peripheral hypoperfusion with microcirculatory dysfunction, often complicated by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis (Figure 2).4,8–13 Once MODS has developed, it is difficult to improve prognosis and reduce mortality by simply increasing cardiac output with a circulatory assist device. Prevention of MODS may depend on three critical factors:

  1. optimal timing (i.e. early initiation) of mechanical circulatory support,

  2. optimal level of mechanical circulatory support with re-establishment of adequate perfusion of critical organs, and

  3. optimal prevention and management of potential device-related complications (i.e. device malfunction, infection).

Intuitively, one would expect that haemodynamic parameters would best discriminate between survivors and non-survivors, and at least for the calculated pressure-flow-product ‘cardiac power output/index’, this has been demonstrated.14,15 However, in the IABP-Shock study,10 cardiac index itself was unrelated to patient survival beyond the first 24 h of CSMI. Likewise, biomarkers of heart failure (e.g. BNP) were unrelated to prognosis in the first 96 h of CSMI.

Figure 2

Prognostically relevant components of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. In addition to severe systolic and diastolic cardiac dysfunction compromising macro- and microcirculation, also systemic inflammatory response syndrome and even sepsis may develop, finally resulting in multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. The pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines mentioned have prognostical significance, with either higher (⇑) or lower (⇓) serum levels in non-survivors compared with survivors. G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; IF, interferon; IL, interleukin; MCP, monocyte chemotactic protein; MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein. Modified from Hochman13 and supplemented with results from the first randomized IABP-Shock trial.10–12

Figure 2

Prognostically relevant components of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. In addition to severe systolic and diastolic cardiac dysfunction compromising macro- and microcirculation, also systemic inflammatory response syndrome and even sepsis may develop, finally resulting in multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. The pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines mentioned have prognostical significance, with either higher (⇑) or lower (⇓) serum levels in non-survivors compared with survivors. G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; IF, interferon; IL, interleukin; MCP, monocyte chemotactic protein; MIP, macrophage inflammatory protein. Modified from Hochman13 and supplemented with results from the first randomized IABP-Shock trial.10–12

On the other hand, MODS severity (as indicated by the APACHE II or SAPS II scores10) and biomarkers of SIRS (like Interleukin 6 and receptor of advanced glycation end-products, RAGE) can predict mortality more accurately than haemodynamic indices (Table 1).16 What do these unexpected findings imply for mechanical circulatory support in CSMI?

Table 1

Prognostic biomarkers in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Biomarker Area under the curve (Selejan et al. 2012)81 Area under the curve (Prondzinsky et al., 2010, Intra-Aortic Balloon counterpulsation Pump SHOCK Trial)10 
RAGE expression on monocytes 0.943, P < 0.001  
Soluble RAGE in plasma 0.815, P = 0.004  
SAPS score 0.873, P < 0.001  
APACHE score  0.850, P < 0.001 
Cardiac power index 0.742, P = 0.025  
Cardiac index  0.771, P = 0.088 
Interleukin-6 in plasma 0.747, P = 0.025 0.769, P = 0.011 
Pro-BNP 0.674, P = 0.149  
BNP  0.502, P = 0.987 
C-reactive protein 0.505, P = 0.963  
Biomarker Area under the curve (Selejan et al. 2012)81 Area under the curve (Prondzinsky et al., 2010, Intra-Aortic Balloon counterpulsation Pump SHOCK Trial)10 
RAGE expression on monocytes 0.943, P < 0.001  
Soluble RAGE in plasma 0.815, P = 0.004  
SAPS score 0.873, P < 0.001  
APACHE score  0.850, P < 0.001 
Cardiac power index 0.742, P = 0.025  
Cardiac index  0.771, P = 0.088 
Interleukin-6 in plasma 0.747, P = 0.025 0.769, P = 0.011 
Pro-BNP 0.674, P = 0.149  
BNP  0.502, P = 0.987 
C-reactive protein 0.505, P = 0.963  

APACHE, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; BNP, B-type natriuretic peptide; RAGE, receptor for advanced glycation end-products; SAPS, Simplified Acute Physiology Score. From Werdan.16

Consequence of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome as predictor of survival for mechanical circulatory support

Although LV contractile failure and low cardiac output are the primary cause of cardiogenic shock, improving cardiac output alone may not reverse or even halt the progression of MODS if initiated too late. Therefore, the haemodynamic improvement of cardiac index may be a measure of technical success of mechanical circulatory support; however, without limiting the progression of SIRS and MODS within the first few days, these haemodynamic improvements may be futile and may not translate into improved survival.

Pharmacological therapy in cardiogenic shock

Current guidelines on the use of inotropes in cardiogenic shock are very careful in evaluating the risk–benefit ratio of inotropes and vasopressors. The recent ESC Guideline on Acute and Chronic Heart Failure states that ‘Inotropes cause sinus tachycardia and may induce myocardial ischaemia and arrhythmias. There is long-standing concern that they may increase mortality’.17

Inotropic therapy

Dobutamine is regarded as the initial treatment of choice in cardiogenic shock with low-output syndrome and preserved systolic blood pressure.18 Because dobutamine does not increase blood pressure per se, it may be combined with vasopressors to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure. All catecholamine-based inotropes cause tachycardia, increase myocardial oxygen demand, and can trigger arrhythmias—both supraventricular and ventricular. In a special subset—patients with post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock—high-dose inotropes were clearly related to higher in-hospital mortality.19

Because of these side effects, other inotropes have been evaluated in cardiogenic shock. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors (e.g. milrinone) have fewer adverse chronotropic and arrhythmogenic effects but can cause significant vasodilation and hypotension and are therefore not a preferred therapeutic option in cardiogenic shock. Calcium sensitizers such as levosimendan do not increase myocardial oxygen consumption and may be less arrhythmogenic. Small studies have confirmed the haemodynamic benefit of levosimendan in CSMI,20 which may exceed the effects of dobutamine21 and enoximone.22 Nevertheless, at least in patients with acute heart failure, survival was not superior.23

Istaroxime is a novel inotropic agent with positive inotropic and lusitropic effects through inhibition of the Na+/K+-ATPase and activation of the sarcolemmal calcium ATPase (SERCA).24 In the HORIZON-HF study in patients with acute heart failure, reduced LV ejection fraction, and preserved systolic blood pressure (90–150 mmHg), istaroxime reduced PCW pressure, increased cardiac output, and improved diastolic LV function.25 It has not yet been tested in CSMI.

Vasopressor therapy

Despite their widespread use in cardiogenic shock, there are limited numbers of prospective randomized studies comparing different vasopressor treatment strategies in shock patients. Most recently, De Backer et al.26 compared dopamine and norepinephrine in shock and found that there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death at 28 days but more arrhythmic events among the patients treated with dopamine. A subgroup analysis showed that dopamine, compared with norepinephrine, was associated with an increased rate of death at 28 days among the 280 patients with cardiogenic shock (P = 0.03; the percentage of CSMI patients within this cardiogenic shock subset is not given), but not among the 1044 patients with septic shock (P = 0.19) or the 263 patients with hypovolemic shock (P = 0.84). The European STEMI guidelines27 prefer dopamine (IIaC) over norepinephrine (IIbC) but state that norepinephrine is preferred over dopamine when blood pressure is low. The German–Austrian CSMI guideline28 states that ‘Norepinephrine should be given as vasopressor (⇑)’.

Conclusions

Taken together, the current pharmacological inotropic and vasopressor therapy in CSMI should be regarded as symptomatic therapy to counteract the cardiac low output failure and peripheral hypoperfusion. However, inotropes are potentially hazardous in ischaemic heart failure due to the increased myocardial oxygen demand, and vasopressors can worsen peripheral tissue perfusion and microcirculation. It is therefore generally recommended to aim for the desired therapeutic effect at the lowest possible dose. The lack of clear evidence on the efficacy of pharmacological inotropic support and the limited or even adverse effect of catecholamine therapy on survival in CSMI are the driving forces behind further exploration of mechanical means of circulatory support.

Mechanical circulatory support

Despite the large number of devices for mechanical circulatory support used in cardiogenic shock5,29–32 (Figure 3, Table 2), there are few well-conducted prospective randomized studies allowing an evidence-based judgement on their therapeutic effectiveness. In this report, we focus on evidence-based application of percutaneous devices in cardiogenic shock, whereas for surgical ventricular assist devices, the reader is referred to the relevant literature.29,33–37

Table 2

Comparison of devices

 IABP ECMO TandemHeart Impella 2.5 Impella 5.0 
Pump mechanism Pneumatic Centrifugal Centrifugal Axial flow Axial flow 
Cannula size 7.9 Fr 18–21 Fr inflow;15–22 Fr outflow 21 Fr inflow; 15–17 Fr outflow 13 Fr 22 Fr 
Insertion technique Descending aorta via the femoral artery Inflow cannula into the right atrium via the femoral vein, outflow cannula into the descending aorta via the femoral artery 21 Fr inflow cannula into left atrium via femoral vein and transseptal puncture and 15–17 Fr outflow cannula into the femoral artery 12 Fr catheter placed retrogradely across the aortic valve via the femoral artery 21 Fr catheter placed retrogradely across the aortic valve via a surgical cutdown of the femoral artery 
Haemodynamic support 0.5 – 1.0 L min−1 >4.5 L min−1 4 L min−1 2.5 L min−1 5.0 L min−1 
Implantation time ++ +++ ++ ++++ 
Risk of limb ischaemia +++ +++ ++ ++ 
Anticoagulation +++ +++ 
Haemolysis ++ ++ ++ ++ 
Post-implantation management complexity +++ ++++ ++ ++ 
Optional active cooling in post-cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients No Yes (Yes) No No 
 IABP ECMO TandemHeart Impella 2.5 Impella 5.0 
Pump mechanism Pneumatic Centrifugal Centrifugal Axial flow Axial flow 
Cannula size 7.9 Fr 18–21 Fr inflow;15–22 Fr outflow 21 Fr inflow; 15–17 Fr outflow 13 Fr 22 Fr 
Insertion technique Descending aorta via the femoral artery Inflow cannula into the right atrium via the femoral vein, outflow cannula into the descending aorta via the femoral artery 21 Fr inflow cannula into left atrium via femoral vein and transseptal puncture and 15–17 Fr outflow cannula into the femoral artery 12 Fr catheter placed retrogradely across the aortic valve via the femoral artery 21 Fr catheter placed retrogradely across the aortic valve via a surgical cutdown of the femoral artery 
Haemodynamic support 0.5 – 1.0 L min−1 >4.5 L min−1 4 L min−1 2.5 L min−1 5.0 L min−1 
Implantation time ++ +++ ++ ++++ 
Risk of limb ischaemia +++ +++ ++ ++ 
Anticoagulation +++ +++ 
Haemolysis ++ ++ ++ ++ 
Post-implantation management complexity +++ ++++ ++ ++ 
Optional active cooling in post-cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients No Yes (Yes) No No 

ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; +, ++, +++, ++++, relative qualitative grading concerning time (‘implantation time’), risk (‘risk of limb ischaemia’), intensity (‘anticoagulation’, ‘post-implantation management complexity’), and severity (‘haemolysis’). Modified from Ouweneel and Henriques.32

Figure 3

Percutaneous assist devices in cardiogenic shock. (A) Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation; (B) Impella® pump; (C) TandemHeartT™; (D) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Modified from Thiele et al.30

Figure 3

Percutaneous assist devices in cardiogenic shock. (A) Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation; (B) Impella® pump; (C) TandemHeartT™; (D) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Modified from Thiele et al.30

Ouweneel and Henriques32 defined the ‘ideal device for cardiogenic shock’ as follows: ‘ … during an acute critical presentation, only those assist devices allowing percutaneous access are suitable due to the invasiveness of surgical devices. The ideal device should enable both haemodynamic support and myocardial protection. Also, a percutaneous approach is preferable to provide for a quick and easy deployment. In addition, the ideal device should be associated with a low complication rate, as complications may sometimes outweigh the potential beneficial effect. Complications associated with any (percutaneous) LV assist device may include limb ischaemia, embolisation of atherosclerotic and/or thrombotic material, stroke, infection and haemolysis’.

In line with these demands for mechanical circulatory support in CSMI, different technical strategies have been developed over the past decades to (i) improve cardiac output and (ii) unload the critically damaged left ventricle by either afterload or pre-load reduction (i.e. pressure or volume unloading, respectively).

Additionally, circulatory support may be provided to the left ventricle alone, the right ventricle alone, or to both ventricles. Biventricular assist devices may be combined with replacement of pulmonary gas exchange (i.e. extracorporal membrane oxygenation, ECMO) or be administered as pure right and LV haemodynamic support.

Based on the different physiological concepts outlined above, we propose to distinguish among four categories of percutaneous circulatory support devices in CSMI: Mechanical biventricular support without simultaneous replacement of pulmonary gas exchange plays a significant role in cardiac surgery, with combined right ventricular assist device (RVAD) and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy or the fully implantable total artificial heart. Although it is possible to insert axial flow pumps in both the right and the left ventricle, this therapeutic strategy has not gained any significant role in CSMI. We will therefore focus on (1), (2), and (4).

  1. mechanical LV support by LV pressure unloading—the IABP;

  2. mechanical LV support by LV volume unloading—the TandemHeart™, the Impella Recover LP® micro-axial rotary pump;

  3. mechanical biventricular support—combination of right ventricular circulator support using a modified TandemHeart and one of the LV circulatory assist devices (e.g. Impella pump); and

  4. mechanical biventricular support with membrane oxygenation—ECMO.

Mechanical left ventricular support by left ventricular pressure unloading: the intra-aortic balloon pump

Intra-aortic balloon pump: the concept

With the IABP in place in the descending thoracic aorta, inflation of the balloon in diastole and active deflation in systole induce higher diastolic perfusion pressures in the coronary arteries and unload the diseased heart by reducing LV afterload during systole. Volume shifting of ∼40 mL per beat by the IABP increases LV stroke volume and cardiac output by up to 1 L min−1 (15–30%, respectively), with the largest increases seen in patients with severely reduced CO.

The haemodynamic effects of IABP in CSMI38 include However, in severe coronary artery stenosis or acute coronary syndrome, more findings argue against39–41 than for42 a clinically relevant increase in coronary blood flow after IABP insertion beyond critical stenoses, despite an increase in coronary perfusion pressure.

  • –an increase in stroke volume and CO,

  • –an increase in systemic blood pressure with increased coronary blood flow in open coronary arteries,39

  • –a reduction in LV pre-load, LV end-diastolic pressure, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure,

  • –a decrease in LV wall stress and myocardial oxygen demand, and

  • –improved reperfusion after thrombolysis in STEMI patients.

The IABP can increase mean blood pressure in CSMI by markedly increasing diastolic pressure in the upper part of the body. In IABP patients with CSMI, a mild improvement of microcirculatory flow was documented43; however, microvascular density, which is better related to prognosis, remained unchanged.44

Detailed information on IABP insertion and removal techniques, care of the patient with an IABP, and contraindications and complications may be found in The ESC Textbook of Intensive and Acute Cardiac Care.38

Clinical studies with surrogate endpoints

A review of the evidence from non-randomized and small randomized clinical trials that studied the use of IABP in CSMI has recently been published.45 As expected, these trials do not provide conclusive evidence whether IABP might reduce mortality in CSMI. ‘Real world’ clinical practice patterns and outcomes are better reflected by the Euro Heart Survey on PCI46: of 654 CSMI patients, 25% were treated with IABP; in-hospital mortality, with and without IABP, was 56.9 and 36.1%, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, the use of IABP was not associated with improved survival (OR 1.47; P = 0.07).

In the first randomized study comparing IABP therapy with conservative management in 40 CSMI patients—the IABP SHOCK trial10–12,47—IABP treatment did not improve haemodynamics or reduce systemic inflammation or the severity of MODS. BNP levels were significantly lower in the IABP group at 48 and 72 h, indicating unloading of the left ventricle. However, this did not translate into better clinical outcomes, including survival in this small study.

Table 3

Proposed haemodynamic effects of the mechanical circulatory support devices

 IABP ECMO TandemHeart Impella 
Afterload Reduced Increased Increased Neutral 
LV stroke volume Slight increase Reduced Reduced Reduced 
Coronary perfusion Slight increase Unknown Unknown Unknown 
LV pre-load Slightly reduced Reduced Reduced Slightly reduced 
PCW pressure Slightly reduced Reduced Reduced Slightly reduced 
Peripheral tissue perfusion No significant increase Improved Improved Improved 
 IABP ECMO TandemHeart Impella 
Afterload Reduced Increased Increased Neutral 
LV stroke volume Slight increase Reduced Reduced Reduced 
Coronary perfusion Slight increase Unknown Unknown Unknown 
LV pre-load Slightly reduced Reduced Reduced Slightly reduced 
PCW pressure Slightly reduced Reduced Reduced Slightly reduced 
Peripheral tissue perfusion No significant increase Improved Improved Improved 

Clinical outcome studies

There are three meta-analyses that address the role of IABP in CSMI.48–50 In the Cochrane Database Systematic Review,49 six eligible and two ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from a total of 1410 references, with inclusion of 190 patients (105 patients treated with IABP and 85 controls—40 without devices and 45 with LVAD). The reported hazard ratio for all-cause 30-day mortality was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.62–1.73), demonstrating no evidence for a survival benefit when using IABP in CSMI. A subset analysis of 62 patients in the two studies10,51 comparing IABP vs. no IABP without LVAD showed that IABP did not significantly reduce in-hospital, 30-day, or 6-month all-cause mortality rates.

Nine cohorts of STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (n = 10,529) were included in the meta-analysis of Sjauw et al.48 In patients treated with thrombolysis, IABP was associated with an 18% decrease in 30-day mortality (P < 0.0001), although this may be due to significantly higher revascularization rates compared with patients without LV support. In contrast, in patients treated with primary PCI, IABP was associated with a 6% (P = 0.0008) increase in 30-day mortality. This meta-analysis indicates that immediate revascularization may have a greater impact on survival in CSMI than IABP use.

A 2012 meta-analysis including 6 cohorts with a total of 24,541 patients calculated a 28% reduction in mortality in the IABP group in CSMI patients.50 However, this meta-analysis did not discriminate between CSMI patients treated by thrombolysis vs. PCI vs. no reperfusion therapy. The divergent findings of the meta-analyses may be related to the heterogeneity of the included patient populations and to publication bias leading to overrepresentation of studies with positive findings regarding IABP effectiveness.

In the randomized, prospective, open-label, multicentre IABP-SHOCK II Trial,4 a total of 600 patients with CSMI were assigned—after best medical therapy and early revascularization, predominantly with PCI (95.8%)—to additional intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). No difference was found in the primary endpoint—30-day all-cause mortality—with 39.7% mortality in the IABP group and 41.3% mortality in the control group (relative risk with IABP 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.79–1.17, P = 0.69). The authors concluded that the use of IABP did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with CSMI for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned.

Of note, no significant survival benefit could be detected in any of the subgroups: contrary to expectation, patients with severely reduced systolic blood pressure (<80 mmHg) did not derive significant survival benefit from IABP placement. The IABP-SHOCK II Trial also has its limitations: inclusion criteria were based on readily available clinical assessments such as systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg for >30 min, pulmonary congestion, and signs of end-organ hypoperfusion. It may be argued that a metabolic parameter such as a serum lactate level >2 mmol L−1 might have been useful to confirm the diagnosis and severity of cardiogenic shock. However, the high 30-day mortality rate of 39.7–41.3% is consistent with previous randomized studies in CSMI.52 Between 20.4 and 23.7% of the patients had suffered a previous myocardial infarction, which may have negatively influenced their potential to benefit from circulatory support. Only data on 30-day mortality are available so far, one-year-mortality will follow. The study was conducted in Germany, a region with a high density of catheterization laboratories and perhaps more aggressive primary revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction than in other regions.

Recommendations for the use of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock

There is a large indication list for the adjunctive use of IABP in heart failure and shock states including cardiac surgery,38 with little convincing evidence of proven benefit. On the other hand, those indications with evidence from large RCTs are all negative: (i) CSMI, (ii) elective high-risk PCI in patients with LV dysfunction and extensive coronary artery disease,53 and (iii) acute anterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock.54

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association STEMI guidelines recommend the use of IABP as a class IIa indication for patients with CSMI,58 whereas the recent European guidelines state that ‘intra-aortic balloon pumping may be considered (IIb/B)’ (Table 4). The German-Austrian S3 Guideline on Cardiogenic Shock28 (Table 4) differentiates between those CSMI patients having been treated with early systemic fibrinolysis and those having been treated by primary PCI. In patients who have undergone systemic fibrinolysis, a weak recommendation (⇑) is given for adjunctive IABP treatment, mainly based on the positive findings of the meta-analysis of Sjauw et al.48; but in patients with PCI, the German–Austrian guidelines find ‘no evidence-based recommendation possible (⇔)’. In patients with mechanical complications like ventricular septal defect, a weak indication (⇑) for the IABP use is given.

Table 4

Guideline recommendations of percutaneous assist devices in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction

Indication Assist device European Guidelines
 
American Guidelines
 
German–Austrian Guidelines 
Cardiogenic shock IABP IIb/B Intraaortic balloon pumping may be considered in patients with cardiogenic shock (Killip class IV) IIa/B Haemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock after STEMI who do not quickly stabilize with pharmacological therapy 

⇑ 
In patients undergoing fibrinolysis
In patients
undergoing PCI
In patients with mechanical complications 
 Left ventricular assist devices IIb/C LV assist devices may be considered for circulatory support in refractory shock in patients with cardiogenic shock (Killip class IV) IIb/C Alternative left ventricular (LV) assist devices for circulatory support may be considered in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock.  Routine use not recommended 
Indication Assist device European Guidelines
 
American Guidelines
 
German–Austrian Guidelines 
Cardiogenic shock IABP IIb/B Intraaortic balloon pumping may be considered in patients with cardiogenic shock (Killip class IV) IIa/B Haemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock after STEMI who do not quickly stabilize with pharmacological therapy 

⇑ 
In patients undergoing fibrinolysis
In patients
undergoing PCI
In patients with mechanical complications 
 Left ventricular assist devices IIb/C LV assist devices may be considered for circulatory support in refractory shock in patients with cardiogenic shock (Killip class IV) IIb/C Alternative left ventricular (LV) assist devices for circulatory support may be considered in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock.  Routine use not recommended 

European Guidelines27; American Guidelines58; German-Austrian Guidelines28.

Recommendation grades of the German-Austrian Guidelines28 ⇑⇑ strongly recommended (‘shall’); ⇑ recommended (‘should’); ⇔ no recommendation (‘may’; no confirmed study results exist that demonstrate either a beneficial or harmful effect); ⇓ rejected (‘should not’); ⇓⇓ strongly rejected (‘shall not’).

LVAD, left ventricular assist device; BiVAD, biventricular assist device.

Personal conclusions

In summary, published meta-analyses, one small and one large RCT consistently document the absence of benefit of routine IABP insertion on morbidity and mortality in patients with CSMI. Given the widespread familiarity with the IABP, the easy insertion, and handling of the device, the lack of any survival benefit comes as a disappointment to many cardiologists and leaves them uncertain as to which device to choose as an alternative. Extracorporal membrane oxygenation and Impella are usually not available outside tertiary care centres with cardiac and/or vascular surgery expertise. To rely on pharmaceutical inotropic support only seems futile and is against our inherent impetus ‘to do something’. As a consequence, the IABP will continue to be used in CSMI—perhaps in declining frequency—because of belief in a certain understanding of pathophysiology and anecdotal experience of improved clinical status that has not, however, been confirmed by clinical benefit in randomized trials.

Mechanical left ventricular support by left ventricular volume unloading The TandemHeart™, a left atrial-to-aortic left ventricular assist device

TandemHeart™: the concept

The TandemHeart™ (Figure 3) provides mechanical circulatory support of up to 4 L min−1 blood with a continuous flow centrifugal pump.32–34 Oxygenized blood is aspirated from the left atrium and injected into the lower abdominal aorta or iliac arteries via a femoral artery cannula.

Clinical studies with surrogate endpoints

The haemodynamic effects of the TandemHeart are superior to the IABP,55,57–59 leading to a greater increase in CO and MAP and a decrease in PCWP, central venous pressure, and pulmonary artery pressure, resulting in reduced filling pressures in the left and right ventricle, reduced cardiac workload and reduced oxygen demand,55,56 as well as an increase in cardiac power index (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Time course of change in haemodynamic parameters expressed as a percentage of patient's baseline in TandemHeart (squares) and IABP (circle) groups of a randomized prospective multicentre trial with 42 patients. Patients presented within 24 h of developing cardiogenic shock, with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction in 70% and decompensated heart failure in most of the remaining patients. Using random effects linear regression analysis, compared with IABP, TandemHeart resulted in a (A) 20% higher cardiac index (P = 0.13), (B) an 18% higher MAP (P = 0.16), and (C) an 18% lower PCWP (P = 0.12). From Burkhoff et al.56

Figure 4

Time course of change in haemodynamic parameters expressed as a percentage of patient's baseline in TandemHeart (squares) and IABP (circle) groups of a randomized prospective multicentre trial with 42 patients. Patients presented within 24 h of developing cardiogenic shock, with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction in 70% and decompensated heart failure in most of the remaining patients. Using random effects linear regression analysis, compared with IABP, TandemHeart resulted in a (A) 20% higher cardiac index (P = 0.13), (B) an 18% higher MAP (P = 0.16), and (C) an 18% lower PCWP (P = 0.12). From Burkhoff et al.56

Complications are an issue for the TandemHeart. In the registry of 117 patients,57 1 patient died after post-operative revision of a wire-related perforation of the left atrium following transseptal puncture; other complications included right common femoral artery dissection (0.85%), groin haematomas (5.1%), bleeding around cannula site (29.1%), device-related limb ischaemia (3.4%), sepsis/SIRS (29.9%), gastrointestinal bleeding (19.7%), coagulopathy (11%), and stroke (6.8%), as well as blood transfusions in 71%. Furthermore, the complexity of the insertion procedure limits the use of the device to centres experienced in transseptal puncture.

Clinical outcome studies

No meta-analysis or RCT examining mortality has been published exclusively for the TandemHeart. A combined meta-analysis assessing the effects of percutaneous LV assist devices (TandemHeart and Impella) will be discussed at the end of the paragraph on the Impella family.

Recommendations for the use of the TandemHeart in patients with cardiogenic shock

In the European guidelines a class IIB recommendation is given for LV assist devices in CSMI27 (Table 4). The 2013 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction assigns a level IIb/C indication for LV assist devices in refractory cardiogenic shock. This includes centrifugal pump systems such as the TandemHeart and ECMO.58

Personal conclusions

Percutaneous circulatory assist device insertion in CSMI is rarely performed as an elective procedure when experienced interventionalists are readily available. However, to perform fluoroscopy-guided transseptal puncture and to advance a 21 Fr inflow cannula into the left atrium requires courage and skills and cannot be done under CPR conditions. Although the concept of the TandemHeart is intriguing, the challenges of device insertion may limit emergency use of the device.

Mechanical left ventricular support by left ventricular volume unloading: The Impella family

The Impella family: the concept

Axial flow pumps30,32 like the Impella Recover LP® micro-axial rotary pump (Figure 3) are positioned across the aortic valve to provide active support by transvalvular LV assistance, expelling aspirated blood from the left ventricle into the ascending aorta (Figure 3). Two versions are currently available: the Impella Recover LP® 2.5 can provide up to 2.5 L min−1 and can be inserted percutaneously. The Impella Recover LP® 5.0 can deliver up to 5.0 L min−1 but requires surgical cutdown of the femoral or axillary artery.

Clinical studies with surrogate endpoints

Several studies have demonstrated that the Impella device is safe and haemodynamically effective in STEMI and high-risk PCI patients.32 The unloading of the left ventricle is associated with reduced end-diastolic wall stress and an immediate decrease in PCWP.32 Coronary perfusion pressure and coronary flow are reported to be increased and myocardial oxygen consumption reduced.32 Clinical trials with the Impella Recover LP® 2.5 applied in a STEMI population with pre-shock (IMPRESS trial) as well as in haemodynamically unstable STEMI population (RECOVER II trial) had to be terminated due to insufficient patient enrolment.32

With respect to the role of the Impella pump in cardiogenic shock and especially in CSMI, an initial report of the experience in six patients61 was followed by two relevant studies. The multicentre Impella EUROSHOCK-Registry62 included 120 patients with CSMI receiving temporary circulatory support with the Impella-2.5-pLVAD. Thirty-day mortality was 64.2%. After Impella-2.5-pLVAD-implantation, lactate levels decreased from 5.8 ± 5.0 to 4.7 ± 5.4 (P = 0.28) and 2.5 ± 2.6 mmol L−1 (P = 0.023) at 24 and 48 h, respectively. The ISAR-SHOCK randomized trial compared the Impella 2.5 with the IABP in cardiogenic shock patients.63 As illustrated in Table 5, CI and MAP increased more in the Impella group; furthermore, serum lactate levels were lower in the Impella group than in the IABP group. No differences in mortality, major bleeding, distal limb ischaemia, arrhythmias, and infections were found.

Table 5

Meta-analysis of RCTs: effects of left ventricular assist devices—TandemHeart55,56 and Impella PL2.5 pump63—in comparison with the effects of IABP on haemodynamics; 30-day-mortality and adverse events in patients with cardiogenic shock, mainly due to myocardial infarction

  Thiele et al.55
 
Burkhoff et al.56
 
Seyfarth et al.63
 
Pooled (fixed effect model)
 
Pooled (random effects model)
 
LVAD (n = 21) IABP (n = 20) LVAD (n = 19) IABP (n = 14) LVAD (n = 13) IABP (n = 13) Mean difference/relative risk P-value Mean difference/relative risk P-value 
Haemodynamics 
 CI ± SD (L min−1 m−22.3 ± 0.6 1.8 ± 0.4 2.2 ± 0.6 2.1 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.6 1.8 ± 0.7 0.35 (0.14; 0.55) <0.001 0.35 (0.09; 0.61) <0.01 
 MAP ± SD (mmHg) 76 ± 10 70 ± 16 91 + 16 72 ± 12 87 ± 18 71 ± 22 12.1 (6.3; 17.9) <0.001 12.8 (3.6; 22.0) <0.01 
 PCWP ± SD (mmHg) 16 ± 5 22 ± 7 16 ± 4 25 ± 3 19 ± 5 20 ± 6 −6.2 (−8.0; −4.3) <0.001 −5.3 (−9.4; −1.2) <0.05 
Clinical outcome 
 30-day mortality, n (%) 9 (43) 9 (45) 9 (47) 5 (36) 6 (46) 6 (46) 1.06 (0.68; 1.66) 0.80 1.06 (0.68; 1.66) 0.80 
Reported adverse events 
 Leg ischaemia, n (%) 7 (33) 0 (0) 4 (21) 2 (14) 1 (8) 0 (0) 2.59 (0.75; 8.97) 0.13 2.59 (0.75; 8.97) 0.13 
 Bleeding, n (%) 19 (90) 8 (40) 8 (42) 2 (14)   2.35 (1.40; 3.93) <0.01 2.35 (1.40: 3.93) <0.01 
 Fever of sepsis, n (%) 17 (81) 10 (50) 4 (21) 5 (36)   1.38 (0.88; 215) 0.16 1.11 (0.43; 290) 0.83 
  Thiele et al.55
 
Burkhoff et al.56
 
Seyfarth et al.63
 
Pooled (fixed effect model)
 
Pooled (random effects model)
 
LVAD (n = 21) IABP (n = 20) LVAD (n = 19) IABP (n = 14) LVAD (n = 13) IABP (n = 13) Mean difference/relative risk P-value Mean difference/relative risk P-value 
Haemodynamics 
 CI ± SD (L min−1 m−22.3 ± 0.6 1.8 ± 0.4 2.2 ± 0.6 2.1 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.6 1.8 ± 0.7 0.35 (0.14; 0.55) <0.001 0.35 (0.09; 0.61) <0.01 
 MAP ± SD (mmHg) 76 ± 10 70 ± 16 91 + 16 72 ± 12 87 ± 18 71 ± 22 12.1 (6.3; 17.9) <0.001 12.8 (3.6; 22.0) <0.01 
 PCWP ± SD (mmHg) 16 ± 5 22 ± 7 16 ± 4 25 ± 3 19 ± 5 20 ± 6 −6.2 (−8.0; −4.3) <0.001 −5.3 (−9.4; −1.2) <0.05 
Clinical outcome 
 30-day mortality, n (%) 9 (43) 9 (45) 9 (47) 5 (36) 6 (46) 6 (46) 1.06 (0.68; 1.66) 0.80 1.06 (0.68; 1.66) 0.80 
Reported adverse events 
 Leg ischaemia, n (%) 7 (33) 0 (0) 4 (21) 2 (14) 1 (8) 0 (0) 2.59 (0.75; 8.97) 0.13 2.59 (0.75; 8.97) 0.13 
 Bleeding, n (%) 19 (90) 8 (40) 8 (42) 2 (14)   2.35 (1.40; 3.93) <0.01 2.35 (1.40: 3.93) <0.01 
 Fever of sepsis, n (%) 17 (81) 10 (50) 4 (21) 5 (36)   1.38 (0.88; 215) 0.16 1.11 (0.43; 290) 0.83 

CI, cardiac index; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; MAP, mean arterial pressure; PCWP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure. From Cheng et al.60 For details on the statistical analysis please refer to the original publication.

It has been suggested that, in severe cardiogenic shock, the Impella 5.0 device may provide superior haemodynamic support.32,64 A lower mortality rate has been reported for Impella 5.0 in patients with post-cardiotomy low-output syndrome with a residual CO of 1 L min−1 vs. IABP.65,66

Clinical outcome studies

No meta-analysis is available for the Impella pump family alone, nor has there been an RCT with mortality as an endpoint. The most important meta-analysis included three controlled trials involving a relatively small total of 100 patients with cardiogenic shock mainly due to myocardial infarction; it compared the effects of LVADs—two trials with TandemHeart and one trial with the Impella PL2.5 pump—with the effects of IABP with respect to haemodynamics and 30-day survival (Table 5).60 In total, LVAD patients had higher CI (+0.35 L min−1m−2), higher MAP (+12.8 mmHg) and lower PCWP (−5.3 mmHg) compared with IABP patients. The 30-day mortality rate was similar between the two circulatory support groups (RR 1.06 for LVAD patients vs. IABP patients, CI 0.68–1.66). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of leg ischaemia (RR 2.59, CI 0.75–8.97) and fever of sepsis (RR 1.11, CI 0.43–2.90) for LVAD patients vs. IABP patients, whereas bleeding was significantly more frequent (RR 2.35, CI 1.40–3.93) in LVAD patients vs. IABP. Adverse events (leg ischaemia, bleeding) were reported more frequently in the TandemHeart trials than in the Impella trial (Table 5).

A subgroup evaluation—including the same LVAD trials—of a Cochrane analysis49 further supports the finding that TandemHeart and Impella 2.5LP pump support improve haemodynamics, but do not improve survival in comparison with IABP support in small trials of patients with CSMI.

Recommendations for the use of an Impella device in patients with cardiogenic shock

The European guidelines give a class IIb/C recommendation for the use of LV assist devices in refractory CSMI27 (Table 4).

Personal conclusions

The concept of a transaortic LV assist device is intriguing; however, limitations include the high rotational speed of the axial flow pump with consecutive haemolysis, the high risk of femoral bleeding and limb ischaemia, and the absence of improved pulmonary oxygenation.

Mechanical biventricular support

In principle, percutaneous biventricular support is feasible using a modified TandemHeart, with an inflow cannula placed in the right atrium and a long outflow cannula in the pulmonary artery.67 This technique was first applied in right ventricular failure secondary to large right ventricular infarction.67 It may be combined with IABP or Impella support for the left ventricle.68 A case of biventricular support using the Impella LVAD and RVAD device was reported by Jurmann et al.66 in a patient with post-transplant graft failure.

Mechanical biventricular support with membrane oxygenation

Percutaneous venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: the concept

The complete percutaneous ECMO system (Figure 3)—a modified heart–lung machine—generally consists of a centrifugal pump, a heat exchanger, and a membrane oxygenator. Venous desaturated blood is aspirated from the right atrium into a centrifugal pump through a long steel wire-reinforced canulla inserted into the right atrium via the femoral vein. The pump outflow is directed into a membrane oxygenator and is guided via an outflow cannula into the descending aorta via the femoral artery.

Though ECMO can provide substantial haemodynamic support and reduce LV pre-load, it also increases LV afterload, thereby increasing oxygen demand and impeding myocardial protection.69 Observational studies and case reports indicate an improvement in microcirculatory flow as measured by sidestream dark field imaging or orthogonal polarization spectral imaging.70,71

Typical ECMO complications are SIRS, renal failure, limb ischaemia and bleeding.

Clinical studies with surrogate endpoints

Extracorporal membrane oxygenation has been applied in STEMI,72 myocarditis,73 post-cardiotomy,74 interhospital transfer,75,76 and also in the cardiac catheterization laboratory in patients who developed cardiorespiratory arrest during PCI and TAVI.77

Clinical outcome studies

There are no meta-analyses for ECMO systems or RCT with a mortality endpoint. In a single-centre retrospective comparison of 219 patients with CSMI treated with primary PCI and adjunctive ECMO between 2002 and 2009 with a historical control group of 115 shock patients treated between 1993 and 2002 without ECMO,72 the 30-day survival in the ECMO group was ∼60% compared with 35% in the historical non-ECMO group (P = 0.003).

Recommendations for the use of extracorporal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock

There is a class IIb/C recommendation in the European STEMI guidelines27 to consider an LV assist device for circulatory support in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock (Table 4). The European guidelines on myocardial revascularization recommend considering—without a definite recommendation—ECMO implantation for temporary support in CSMI patients who continue to deteriorate due to inadequate circulatory support of the IABP. This recommendation is based on expert consensus.

Personal conclusions

Intra-aortic balloon pump is in widespread clinical use for CSMI. However, the IABP-Shock II Trial failed to confirm improved survival with its routine use in a population that underwent PCI. Among the other mechanical circulatory support devices for cardiogenic shock, we believe that ECMO is likely to have the greatest potential for wider clinical use. Its major advantages are However, it does not reduce afterload. There are no RCTs that demonstrate improved clinical outcomes with ECMO, and hospitals without access to perfusionists are understandably hesitant to use a more complex device. More user-friendly ECMO systems have been developed for ICU use and these issues will be addressed in the near future.

  • –quick and easy percutaneous insertion of inflow and outflow cannulas,

  • –full circulatory support with up to 4.0 L min−1,

  • –extracorporeal membrane oxygenation rapidly improves tissue oxygenation in situations of cardiogenic shock combined with severe pulmonary oedema.

Future aspects

Despite optimal up-to-date therapy of CSMI (including early resuscitation early primary PCI, medical treatment with recently developed antithrombotic medications, and aggressive management of complications), mortality of cardiogenic shock continues to remain unacceptably high. Limited data may support the use of levosimendan,22 but innovations in pharmacological therapy are not forthcoming. Mild therapeutic hypothermia is promising as a potential therapeutic strategy for CSMI.78 It has multiple potentially beneficial effects, including the potential to improve post-ischaemic cardiac function and haemodynamics, decrease myocardial damage, and reduce end-organ injury from prolonged hypoperfusion. Data on animal models of post-MI cardiogenic shock and ischaemia/reperfusion injury and small case series of patients with cardiogenic shock are encouraging.78

The neutral results of the IABP-SHOCK II Trial remind us that immediate haemodynamic improvement may not automatically translate into improved survival. However, many believe that mechanical circulatory support may be the best therapy for the future. What is the future direction of device-related therapy in CSMI and which areas need further clinical research?

(1) Physiological concept of left ventricular support

  • The IABP concept of primary afterload reduction with modest increases in stroke volume and cardiac output has failed to translate into survival benefits. It is therefore logical to focus now on devices with higher cardiac output support. However, more cardiac output may be a necessary prerequisite, but no guarantee for success.

(2) Reduction of device-related complications

  • Clinical success of device therapy in CSMI does not depend on the mechanical qualities of the device alone. The ease and safety of device implantation—especially under emergency conditions and during cardiopulmonary resuscitation—will also greatly influence patient outcome. Additionally, the rates of device-related complications such as limb ischaemia, access site bleeding, haemolysis, and infection are still too high, and the contact of blood with these devices may cause/worsen SIRS and MODS. Patients with CSMI have minimal reserve to tolerate operator error or device complications.

(3) Timing of mechanical circulatory support

  • Data from morbidity studies with a focus on the time course of SIRS and MODS development indicate that haemodynamic support has limited ability to change outcome if initiated when overt MODS has already developed. Mechanical circulatory support should not be considered the treatment of last resort for CSMI, but should probably be initiated early in the disease course to minimize the negative effects of high-dose catecholamine therapy on microcirculation and before end-organ dysfunction with MODS. No randomized clinical trials have been initiated to study the optimal timing of circulatory support in CSMI, but they are needed.

(4) Improvements in revascularization therapy

In view of the dissociation between improvements in haemodynamic parameters and clinical outcomes, including mortality, as evidenced by the neutral results of the IABP-SHOCK II Trial, device therapy must not only improve haemodynamics, but prevent or reduce MODS and ultimately, mortality.

  • There is continuing debate whether culprit lesion revascularization or complete revascularization is the preferred immediate interventional treatment strategy in CSMI. The CULPRIT-SHOCK Trial (Coordinating Investigator: H. Thiele) is under way.

The final pathway of CSMI is the microcirculation. We know how to measure microcirculatory function in shock patients, and we know that impaired microcirculation predicts poor outcome of patients with CSMI.79 Optimizing outcomes in CSMI is not only a matter of better devices, but also of better patient monitoring. We need to go beyond CI measurements and focus on other prognostically relevant information. Perhaps monitoring of microcirculation79 would help to optimize circulatory support in the future. The failure of IABP in CSMI is not the end of device therapy for this condition; it is the dawn of a new and more systematic era of clinical research on circulatory support and outcome measures in cardiogenic shock—an important frontier of cardiology today.

Funding

K.W. received honoraria for lectures from Datascope and Maquet; honoraria for advisoray board activities from EPC Berlin and Datascope; financial support for participation in clinicial trials from Arrows, and Datascope; financial research funding from Datascope; no financial interests consists for financial shares and options.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References

1
Thiele
H
Schuler
G
Neumann
F-J
Hausleiter
J
Olbrich
H-G
Schwarz
B
Hennersdorf
M
Empen
K
Fuernau
G
Desch
S
de Waha
S
Eitel
I
Hambrecht
R
Böhm
M
Kurowski
V
Lauer
B
Minden
H-H
Figulla
H-R
Braun-Dullaeus
RC
Strasser
RH
Rochor
K
Maier
SKG
Möllmann
H
Schneider
S
Ebelt
H
Werdan
K
Zeymer
U
Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial
Am Heart J
 , 
2012
, vol. 
163
 (pg. 
938
-
945
)
2
Hochman
JS
Sleeper
LA
Webb
JG
Sanborn
TA
White
HD
Talley
JD
Buller
CE
Jacobs
AK
Slater
JN
Col
J
McKinlay
SM
LeJemtel
TH
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
, vol. 
341
 (pg. 
625
-
634
)
3
Hochman
JS
Sleeper
LA
Webb
JG
Dzavik
V
Buller
CE
Aylward
P
Col
J
White
HD
SHOCK Investigators
Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction
JAMA
 , 
2006
, vol. 
295
 (pg. 
2511
-
2515
)
4
Thiele
H
Zeymer
U
Neumann
F-J
Ferenc
M
Olbrich
H-G
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
for the IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators
Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock
N Engl J Med
 , 
2012
, vol. 
367
 (pg. 
1287
-
1296
)
5
Reynolds
HR
Hochman
JS
Cardiogenic shock – current concepts and improving outcomes
Circulation
 , 
2008
, vol. 
117
 (pg. 
686
-
697
)
6
Sleeper
LA
Reynolds
HR
White
HD
Webb
JG
Dzavik
V
Hochman
JS
A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial and registry
Am Heart J
 , 
2010
, vol. 
160
 (pg. 
443
-
450
)
7
Katz
JN
Stebbins
AL
Alexander
JH
Reynolds
HR
Pieper
KS
Ruzyllo
W
Werdan
K
Geppert
A
Dzavik
V
Van de Werf
F
Hochman
JS
for the TRIUMPH Investigators
Predictors of 30-day mortality in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction despite a patent infarct artery
Am Heart J
 , 
2009
, vol. 
158
 (pg. 
680
-
687
)
8
Kohsaka
S
Menon
V
Lowe
AM
Lange
AM
Dzavik
V
Sleeper
LA
Hochman
JS
SHOCK Investigators
Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
Arch Int Med
 , 
2005
, vol. 
165
 (pg. 
1643
-
1650
)
9
Kohsaka
S
Menon
V
Iwato
K
Lowe
A
Sleeper
LA
Hochman
JS
Microbiological profile of septic complication in patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction (from the SHOCK Study)
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
99
 (pg. 
802
-
804
)
10
Prondzinsky
R
Lemm
H
Swyter
M
Wegener
N
Unverzagt
S
Carter
JM
Russ
M
Schlitt
A
Buerke
U
Christoph
A
Schmidt
H
Winkler
M
Thiery
J
Werdan
K
Buerke
M
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
, vol. 
38
 (pg. 
152
-
160
)
11
Prondzinsky
R
Unverzagt
S
Lemm
H
Wegener
N-A
Schlitt
A
Heinroth
KM
Dietz
S
Buerke
U
Kellner
P
Loppnow
H
Fiedler
MG
Thiery
J
Werdan
K
Buerke
M
Interleukin-6, -7, and -10 predict outcome in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
Clin Res Cardiol
 , 
2012
, vol. 
101
 (pg. 
375
-
384
)
12
Prondzinsky
R
Unverzagt
S
Lemm
H
Wegener
N
Heinroth
K
Buerke
U
Fiedler
M
Thiery
J
Haerting
J
Werdan
K
Buerke
M
Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock – prognostic impact of cytokines: INF-γ, TNF-α, MIP-1β, G-CSF, and MCP-1β
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed
 , 
2012
, vol. 
107
 (pg. 
476
-
484
)
13
Hochman
JS
Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: expanding the paradigm
Circulation
 , 
2003
, vol. 
107
 (pg. 
2998
-
3002
)
14
Fincke
R
Hochman
JS
Lowe
AM
Menon
V
Slater
JN
Webb
JG
LeJemtel
TH
Cotter
G
SHOCK Investigators
Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial registry
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2004
, vol. 
44
 (pg. 
340
-
348
)
15
Mendoza
DD
Cooper
HA
Panza
JA
Cardiac power output predicts mortality across a broad spectrum of patients with acute cardiac disease
Am Heart J
 , 
2007
, vol. 
153
 (pg. 
366
-
370
)
16
Werdan
K
Do not get in RAGE in cardiogenic shock: it is detrimental!
Crit Care Med
 , 
2012
, vol. 
40
 (pg. 
1669
-
1670
)
17
The Task Force for the Diagnosis, Treatment of Acute, Chronic Heart Failure 2012 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC
ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2012
Eur Heart J
 , 
2012
, vol. 
33
 (pg. 
1787
-
1847
)
18
Antman
EM
Hand
M
Armstrong
PW
Bates
ER
Green
LA
Halasyamani
LK
Hochman
JS
Krumholz
HM
Lamas
GA
Mullany
CJ
Pearle
DL
Sloan
MA
Smith
SC
Jr
Anbe
DT
Kushner
FG
Ornato
JP
Jacobs
AK
Adams
CD
Anderson
JL
Buller
CE
Creager
MA
Ettinger
SM
Halperin
JL
Hunt
SA
Lytle
BW
Nishimura
R
Page
RL
Riegel
B
Tarkington
LG
Yancy
CW
2004 Writing Committee Members
2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians: 2007 Writing Group to review new evidence and update the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, writing on behalf of the 2004 Writing Committee
Circulation
 , 
2008
, vol. 
117
 (pg. 
296
-
329
)
19
Samuels
LE
Kaufman
MS
Thomas
MP
Holmes
EC
Brockman
SK
Wechsler
AS
Pharmacological criteria for ventricular assist device insertion following postcardiotomy shock: experience with the Abiomed BVS system
J Card Surg.
 , 
1999
, vol. 
14
 (pg. 
288
-
293
)
20
Russ
MA
Prondzinsky
R
Christoph
A
Schlitt
A
Buerke
U
Söffker
G
Lemm
H
Swyter
M
Wegener
N
Winkler
M
Carter
JM
Reith
S
Werdan
K
Buerke
M
Hemodynamic improvement following levosimendan treatment in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock
Crit Care Med
 , 
2007
, vol. 
35
 (pg. 
2732
-
2739
)
21
Garcia-González
J
Dominguez-Rodriguez
A
Ferrer-Hita
JJ
Abreu-Gonzaléz
P
Munoz
MB
Cardiogenic shock after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: effects of levosimendan compared with dobutamine on haemodynamics
Eur J Heart Fail
 , 
2006
, vol. 
8
 (pg. 
723
-
728
)
22
Fuhrmann
JT
Schmeisser
A
Schulze
MR
Wunderlich
C
Schoen
SP
Rauwolf
T
Weinbrenner
C
Strasser
RH
Levosimendan is superior to enoximone in refractory cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction
Crit Care Med
 , 
2008
, vol. 
36
 (pg. 
2257
-
2266
Editorial: 2450–2451; Comments: 2009:37:1181–1182; Erratum 2008;36:2966
23
Mebazaa
A
Nieminen
MS
Packer
M
Cohen-Solal
A
Kleber
FX
Pocock
SJ
Thakkar
R
Padley
RJ
Pöder
P
Kivikko
M
SURVIVE Investigators
Levosimendan vs. dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure: the SURVIVE randomized trial
JAMA
 , 
2007
, vol. 
297
 (pg. 
1883
-
1891
)
24
Khan
H
Metra
M
Blair
JE
Vogel
M
Harinstein
ME
Filippatos
GS
Sabbah
HN
Porchet
H
Valentini
G
Gheorghiade
M
Istaroxime, a first in class new chemical entity exhibiting SERCA-2 activation and Na-K-ATPase inhibition: a new promising treatment for acute heart failure syndromes?
Heart Fail Rev.
 , 
2009
, vol. 
14
 (pg. 
277
-
287
)
25
Shah
SJ
Blair
JE
Filippatos
GS
Macarie
C
Ruzyllo
W
Korewicki
J
Bubenek- Turconi
SI
Ceracchi
M
Bianchetti
M
Carminati
P
Kremastinos
D
Grzybowski
J
Valentini
G
Sabbah
HN
Gheorghiade
M
HORIZON-HF Investigators
Effects of istaroxime on diastolic stiffness in acute heart failure syndromes: results from the Hemodynamic, Echocardiographic, and Neurohormonal Effects of Istaroxime, a Novel Intravenous Inotropic and Lusitropic Agent: a Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Hospitalized with Heart Failure (HORIZON-HF) trial
Am Heart J
 , 
2009
, vol. 
157
 (pg. 
1035
-
1041
)
26
De Backer
D
Biston
P
Devriendt
J
Madl
C
Cochrad
D
Aldecoa
C
Brasseur
A
Defrance
P
Gottignies
P
Vincent
JL
SOAP II Investigators
Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock
N Engl J Med
 , 
2010
, vol. 
362
 (pg. 
779
-
789
)
27
The
Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)
ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation
Eur Heart J
 , 
2012
, vol. 
33
 (pg. 
2569
-
2619
)
28
Werdan
K
Ruß
M
Buerke
M
Delle-Karth
G
Geppert
A
Schöndube
FA
Cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction: diagnosis, monitoring and treatment – a German-Austrian S3 Guideline
Dtsch Arztebl Int
 , 
2012
, vol. 
109
 (pg. 
343
-
351
)
29
Abu-Omar
Y
Tsui
SSL
Mechanical circulatory support for AMI and cardiogenic shock
J Card Surg
 , 
2010
, vol. 
25
 (pg. 
434
-
441
)
30
Thiele
H
Smalling
RW
Schuler
GC
Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
Eur Heart J
 , 
2007
, vol. 
28
 (pg. 
2057
-
2063
)
31
Thiele
H
Allam
B
Chatellier
G
Schuler
G
Lafont
A
Shock in acute myocardial infarction: the Cape Horn for trials?
Eur Heart J
 , 
2010
, vol. 
31
 (pg. 
1828
-
1835
)
32
Ouweneel
DM
Henriques
JPS
Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: current indications and recommendations
Heart
 , 
2012
, vol. 
98
 (pg. 
1246
-
1254
)
33
Naidu
SS
Novel percutaneous cardiac assist devices: the science of and indications for hemodynamic support
Circulation
 , 
2011
, vol. 
123
 (pg. 
533
-
543
)
34
Anderson
M
Smedira
N
Samuels
L
Madani
M
Naka
Y
Acker
M
Hout
M
Benali
K
Use of the AB5000 ventricular assist device in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction
Ann Thorac Surg
 , 
2010
, vol. 
90
 (pg. 
706
-
712
)
35
Stewart
GC
Givertz
MM
Mechanical circulatory support for advanced heart failure – patients and technology in evolution
Circulation
 , 
2012
, vol. 
125
 (pg. 
1304
-
1315
)
36
Tayara
W
Starling
RC
Yamani
MH
Wazni
O
Jubran
F
Smedira
N
Improved survival after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock with circulatory support and transplantation: comparing aggressive intervention with conservative treatment
J Heart Lung Transplant
 , 
2006
, vol. 
25
 (pg. 
504
-
509
)
37
Wever-Pinzon
O
Stehlik
J
Kfoury
AG
Terrovitis
JV
Diakos
NA
Charitos
C
Li
DY
Drakos
SG
Ventricular assist devices: pharmacological aspects of a mechanical therapy
Pharmacol Ther
 , 
2012
, vol. 
134
 (pg. 
189
-
199
)
38
Werdan
K
Ruß
M
Buerke
M
Marco
Tubaro
Nicolas
Danchin
Gerasimos
Filippatos
Patrick
Goldstein
Pascal
Vranckx
Doron
Zahger
The intra-aortic balloon pump
The ESC Textbook of Intensive and Acute Cardiac Care
 , 
2011
Oxford
Oxford University Press
(pg. 
277
-
288
)
39
Kern
MJ
Aguirre
FV
Tatineni
S
Penick
D
Serota
H
Donohue
T
Walter
K
Enhanced coronary blood flow velocity during intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in critically ill patients
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
1993
, vol. 
21
 (pg. 
359
-
368
)
40
Kern
MJ
Aguirre
F
Bach
R
Donohue
T
Siegel
R
Segal
J
Augmentation of coronary blood flow by intraaortic balloon pumping in patients after coronary angioplasty
Circulation
 , 
1993
, vol. 
87
 (pg. 
500
-
511
)
41
Kimura
A
Toyota
E
Songfang
L
Goto
M
Yada
T
Chiba
Y
Ebata
J
Tachibana
H
Ogasawara
Y
Tsujioka
K
Kajiya
F
Effects of intraaortic balloon pumping on septal arterial blood flow velocity waveform during severe left main coronary artery stenosis
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
1996
, vol. 
27
 (pg. 
810
-
816
)
42
Fuchs
RM
Brin
KP
Brinker
JA
Guzman
PA
Heuser
RR
Yin
FCP
Augmentation of regional coronary blood flow by intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with unstable angina
Circulation
 , 
1983
, vol. 
68
 (pg. 
1117
-
1123
)
43
Jung
C
Rödiger
C
Fritzenwanger
M
Schumm
J
Lauten
A
Figulla
HR
Ferrari
M
Acute microflow changes after stop and restart of intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock
Clin Res Cardiol.
 , 
2009
, vol. 
98
 (pg. 
469
-
475
)
44
den Uil
CA
Lagrand
WK
van der Ent
M
Jewbali
LS
Brugts
JJ
Spronk
PE
Simoons
ML
The effects of intra-aortic balloon pump support on macrocirculation and tissue microcirculation in patients with cardiogenic shock
Cardiology
 , 
2009
, vol. 
114
 (pg. 
42
-
46
)
45
Buerke
M
Prondzinsky
R
Lemm
H
Dietz
S
Buerke
U
Ebelt
H
Bushnaq
H
Silber
R-E
Werdan
K
Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in the treatment of infarction-related cardiogenic shock – review of the current evidence
Artif Organs
 , 
2012
, vol. 
36
 (pg. 
505
-
511
)
46
Zeymer
U
Bauer
T
Hamm
C
Zahn
R
Weidinger
F
Seabra-Gomes
R
Hochadel
M
Marco
J
Gitt
A
Eberli
F
Gitt
A
Seabra-Gomes
R
Serruys
PW
Silber
S
Vahanian
A
Weidinger
F
Wijns
W
Zeymer
U
Euro Heart Survey PCI Steering Committee: Marco J (Chairman)
Use and impact of intra-aortic balloon pump on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the Euro Heart Survey on PCI
EuroIntervention
 , 
2011
, vol. 
7
 (pg. 
437
-
441
)
47
Prondzinsky
R
Unverzagt
S
Russ
M
Lemm
H
Swyter
M
Wegener
N
Buerke
U
Raaz
U
Ebelt
H
Schlitt
A
Heinroth
K
Haerting
J
Werdan
K
Buerke
M
Hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK trial
Shock
 , 
2012
, vol. 
37
 (pg. 
378
-
384
)
48
Sjauw
KD
Engström
AE
Vis
MM
van der Schaaf
RJ
Baan
J
Jr
Koch
KT
de Winter
RJ
Piek
JJ
Tijsen
JGP
Henriques
JPS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of intraaortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines?
Eur Heart J
 , 
2009
, vol. 
30
 (pg. 
459
-
468
)
49
Unverzagt
S
Machemer
MT
Solms
A
Thiele
H
Burkhoff
D
Seyfarth
M
de Waha
A
Ohman
EM
Buerke
M
Haerting
J
Werdan
K
Prondzinsky
R
Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
 , 
2011
, vol. 
7
 pg. 
CD007398
 
50
Bahekar
A
Singh
M
Singh
S
Bhuriya
R
Ahmad
K
Khosla
S
Arora
R
Cardiovascular outcomes using intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Therap
 , 
2012
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
44
-
56
)
51
Ohman
EM
Nanas
J
Stomel
RJ
Leesar
MA
Nielsen
DWT
O'Dea
D
Rogers
FJ
Harber
D
Hudson
MP
Fraulo
E
Shaw
LK
Lee
KL
TACTICS Trial
Thrombolysis and counterpulsation to improve survival in myocardial infarction complicated by hypotension and suspected cardiogenic shock or heart failure: results of the TACTICS Trial
J Thromb Thrombolysis
 , 
2005
, vol. 
19
 (pg. 
33
-
39
)
52
Alexander
JH
Reynolds
HR
Stebbins
AL
Dzavik
V
Harrington
RA
Van de Werf
F
Hochman
JS
TRIUMPH Investigators
Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial
JAMA
 , 
2007
, vol. 
297
 (pg. 
1657
-
1666
)
53
Perrera
D
Stables
R
Thomas
M
Booth
J
Pitt
M
Blackman
D
de Belder
A
Redwood
S
for the BCIS-1 Investigators
Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention – a randomized controlled trial
JAMA
 , 
2010
, vol. 
304
 (pg. 
867
-
874
)
54
Patel
MR
Smalling
RW
Thiele
H
Barnhart
HX
Zhou
Y
Chandra
P
Chew
D
Cohen
M
French
J
Perrera
D
Ohman
EM
Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and infarct size in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction without shock: the CRISP-AMI randomized trial
JAMA
 , 
2011
, vol. 
306
 (pg. 
1329
-
1337
)
55
Thiele
H
Sick
P
Boudriot
E
Diederich
KW
Hambrecht
R
Niebauer
J
Schuler
G
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
, vol. 
26
 (pg. 
1276
-
1283
)
56
Burkhoff
D
Cohen
H
Brunckhorst
C
O'Neill
WW
TandemHeart Investigators Group
A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device vs. conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock
Am Heart J
 , 
2006
, vol. 
152
 (pg. 
469.e1
-
469.e8
)
57
Kar
B
Gregoric
ID
Basra
SS
Idelchik
GM
Loyalka
P
The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2011
, vol. 
57
 (pg. 
688
-
696
)
58
O'Gara
PT
Kushner
FG
Ascheim
DD
Casey
DE
Jr
Chung
MK
de Lemos
JA
Ettinger
SM
Fang
JC
Fesmire
FM
Franklin
BA
Granger
CB
Krumholz
HM
Linderbaum
JA
Morrow
DA
Newby
LK
Ornato
JP
Ou
N
Radford
MJ
Tamis-Holland
JE
Tommaso
CL
Tracy
CM
Woo
YJ
Zhao
DX
2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
Circulation.
 , 
2013
, vol. 
127
 (pg. 
e362
-
e425
)
59
Thiele
H
Lauer
B
Hambrecht
R
Boudriot
E
Cohen
HA
Schuler
G
Reversal of cardiogenic shock by percutaneous left atrial-to-femoral arterial bypass assistance
Circulation
 , 
2001
, vol. 
104
 (pg. 
2917
-
2922
)
60
Cheng
JM
den Uil
CA
Hoeks
SE
van der Ent
M
Jewbali
LSD
van Domburg
RT
Serruys
PW
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
, vol. 
30
 (pg. 
2102
-
2108
)
61
Meyns
B
Dens
J
Sergeant
P
Herijgers
P
Daenen
W
Flameng
W
Initial experiences with the Impella device in patients with cardiogenic shock – Impella support for cardiogenic shock
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
 , 
2003
, vol. 
51
 (pg. 
312
-
317
)
62
Lauten
A
Engström
A
Jung
C
Empen
K
Erne
P
Cook
S
Windecker
S
Bergmann
M
Klingenberg
R
Lüscher
T
Haude
M
Rulands
D
Butter
C
Ullmann
B
Hellgren
L
Modena
MG
Pedrazzini
G
Henriques
J
Figulla
H
Ferrari
M
Percutaneous left ventricular support with the Impella 2.5 assist device in acute cardiogenic shock – results of the Impella EUROSHOCK-Registry
Circ Heart Fail
 , 
2013
, vol. 
61
 (pg. 
23
-
30
)
63
Seyfarth
M
Sibbing
D
Bauer
I
Fröhlich
G
Bott-Flügel
L
Byrne
R
Dirschinger
J
Kastrati
A
Schömig
A
A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs. intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2008
, vol. 
52
 (pg. 
1584
-
1588
)
64
Engström
AE
Cochieri
R
Driessen
AH
Sjauw
KD
Vis
MM
Baan
J
de Jong
M
Lagrand
WK
van der Sloot
JA
Tijssen
JG
de Winter
RJ
de Mol
BA
Piek
JJ
Henriques
JP
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
, vol. 
39
 (pg. 
2072
-
2079
)
65
Siegenthaler
MP
Brehm
K
Strecker
T
Hanke
T
Nötzold
A
Olschewski
M
Weynad
M
Sievers
H
Beyersdorf
F
The Impella recover microaxial left ventricular assist device reduces mortality for postcardiotomy failure: a three-center experience
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
 , 
2004
, vol. 
127
 (pg. 
812
-
822
)
66
Jurmann
MJ
Siniawski
H
Erb
M
Drews
T
Hetzer
R
Initial experience with miniature axial flow ventricular assist devices for postcardiotomy heart failure
Ann Thorac Surg
 , 
2004
, vol. 
77
 (pg. 
1642
-
1647
)
67
Giesler
GM
Gomez
JS
Letsou
G
Vooletich
M
Smalling
RW
Initial report of percutaneous right ventricular assist for right ventricular shock secondary to right ventricular infarction
Cath Cardiovasc Interv
 , 
2006
, vol. 
68
 (pg. 
263
-
266
)
68
Atwater
BD
Nee
LM
Gimelli
G
Long-term survival using intra-aortic balloon pump and percutaneous right ventricular assist device for biventricular mechanical support of cardiogenic shock
J Invasive Cardiol
 , 
2008
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
E205
-
E207
)
69
Kawashima
D
Gojo
S
Nishimura
T
Itoda
Y
Kitahori
K
Motomura
N
Morota
T
Murakami
A
Takamoto
S
Kyo
S
Ono
M
Left ventricular mechanical support with Impella provides more ventricular unloading in heart failure than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
ASAIO J
 , 
2011
, vol. 
57
 (pg. 
169
-
176
)
70
Jung
C
Ferrari
M
Gradinger
R
Fritzenwanger
M
Pfeifer
R
Schlosser
M
Poerner
TC
Brehm
BR
Figulla
HR
Evaluation of the microcirculation during extracorporeal membrane-oxygenation
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc.
 , 
2008
, vol. 
40
 (pg. 
311
-
314
)
71
Jung
C
Lauten
A
Roediger
C
Fritzenwanger
M
Schumm
J
Figulla
HR
Ferrari
M
In vivo evaluation of tissue microflow under combined therapy with extracorporeal life support and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation
Anaesth Intensive Care
 , 
2009
, vol. 
37
 (pg. 
833
-
835
)
72
Sheu
JJ
Tsai
TH
Lee
FY
Fang
HY
Sun
CK
Leu
S
Yang
CH
Chen
SM
Hang
CL
Hsieh
YK
Chen
CJ
Wu
CJ
Yip
HK
Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock
Crit Care Med
 , 
2010
, vol. 
38
 (pg. 
1810
-
1817
)
73
Asaumi
Y
Yasuda
S
Morii
I
Kakuchi
H
Otsuka
Y
Kawamura
A
Sasako
Y
Nakatani
T
Nonogi
H
Miyazaki
S
Favourable clinical outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock due to fulminant myocarditis supported by percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Eur Heart J
 , 
2005
, vol. 
26
 (pg. 
2185
-
2192
)
74
Doll
N
Kiali
B
Borger
M
Bucerius
J
Krämer
K
Schmitt
DV
Walther
T
Mohr
FW
Five-year results of 219 consecutive patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory postoperative cardiogenic shock
Ann Thorac Surg
 , 
2004
, vol. 
77
 (pg. 
151
-
157
)
75
Arlt
M
Philipp
A
Voelkel
S
Camboni
D
Rupprecht
L
Graf
BM
Schmid
C
Hilker
M
Hand-held minimized extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a new bridge to recovery in patients with out-of-centre cardiogenic shock
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
 , 
2011
, vol. 
40
 (pg. 
689
-
694
)
76
Formica
F
Avalli
L
Redaelli
G
Paolini
G
Interhospital stabilization of adult patients with refractory cardiogenic shock by veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Int J Cardiol
 , 
2011
, vol. 
147
 (pg. 
164
-
165
)
77
Arlt
M
Philipp
A
Voelkel
S
Schopka
S
Husser
O
Hengstenberg
C
Schmid
C
Hilker
M
Early experiences with miniaturized extracorporeal life-support in the catheterization laboratory
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
 , 
2012
, vol. 
42
 (pg. 
858
-
863
)
78
Stegman
BM
Newby
LK
Hochman
JS
Ohman
EM
Post-myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock is a systemic illness in need of systemic treatment
J Am Coll Cardiol
 , 
2012
, vol. 
59
 (pg. 
644
-
647
)
79
Den Uil
CA
Lagrand
WK
van der Ent
M
Jewbali
LSD
Cheng
JM
Spronk
PE
Simoons
ML
Impaired microcirculation predicts poor outcome of patients with acute moycardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock
Eur Heart J
 , 
2010
, vol. 
31
 (pg. 
3032
-
3039
)
80
Goldberg
RJ
Spencer
FA
Gore
JM
Lessard
D
Yarzebski
J
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
, vol. 
119
 (pg. 
1211
-
1219
)
81
Selejan
SR
Pöss
J
Hewera
L
Kazakov
A
Böhm
M
Link
A
Role of receptor for advanced glycation end products in cardiogenic shock
Crit Care Med
 , 
2012
, vol. 
40
 (pg. 
1513
-
1522
)

Comments

2 Comments
Impella 2.5: readjustments of the evaluation
3 December 2013
Stephane Manzo-Silberman (with Dr Nadia Aissaoui, MD, Pr Patrick Henry, MD PhD, and Pr Christian Spaulding MD)

In their review, Werdan et al1 describe very eloquently and pedagogically the continued medical challenge of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction (CSMI). Despite tremendous strides that have been made in the field of cardiovascular medicine, since the decline of mortality obtained by early revascularization2, 3 no significant improvement had been significant. Whereas various circulatory assist systems have demonstrated improvement in early hemodynamic parameters, none of them have achieved increase of short and long term survival rate in clinical trial. As IABP, the historical assist device has recently seen its recommendation revised4 according to the first large multicentre randomized controlled trial5 in patients with CSMI treated by an early revascularization strategy, a precise and rigorous assessment of all existing devices seems all the more necessary. That is why we felt required to weigh a few points about the description of Impella, to reassess its place as efficient left ventricle assist device but lacking large RCT. The authors seems to reduce the potential hemodynamic effect of the pump, particularly the beneficial effect of the active unloading on afterload and coronary perfusion: not only animal10 but also clinical hemodynamics evaluations have recorded the direct and efficient unloading the left ventricle, the reduced myocardial workload and oxygen consumption and increased cardiac output and coronary and end organ perfusion8-0.

Furthermore, the depicted range of complications related in the review seems more pejorative than reported in the literature11 and observed in our experiment12. In the only RCT comparing Impella to IABP in the setting of CSMI, the authors concludes that no difference in mortality, major bleeding, distal limb ischaemia, arrhythmias and infections was found13. Even in our study12, including very severely ill patients with post- resuscitation shock, the rate of complications did not differ substantially in the two groups, except for a trend toward a higher rate of bleeding events with IMPELLA. Particularly, the authors insist on the risk of limb ischemia, estimated by "++", witch do not correspond to the risk reported by our series nor the other reports published. As well, the estimated implantation time and the post implantation management complexity, in our opinion and those reported in safety and feasibility studies14, should not be different from the one of IABP. We totally support the author's statement on the need of devices improvement, but we should not overvalue the device-related complication, risking loosing a powerful tool by misleading conclusions. We fully associate the necessity of RCT of sufficient magnitude to estimate the real impact on outcome and the effective risk of Impella, as it has been masterfully demonstrated for IABP15.

1. Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. Sep 7 2013.

2. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Jama. Jun 7 2006;295(21):2511-2515.

3. Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X, et al. Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries. Eur Heart J. Oct 2012;33(20):2535-2543.

4. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. Oct 2012;33(20):2569-2619.

5. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. Oct 4 2012;367(14):1287-1296.

6. Valgimigli M, Steendijk P, Sianos G, et al. Left ventricular unloading and concomitant total cardiac output increase by the use of percutaneous Impella Recover LP 2.5 assist device during high-risk coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Jun 2005;65(2):263-267.

7. Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JP, et al. Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Oct 1 2007;70(4):532-537.

8. Lauten A, Strauch JT, Groetzner J, et al. Myocardial failure caused by traumatic dissection of left coronary system--ventricular recovery with temporary circulatory support. J Card Surg. May-Jun 2007;22(3):238-239.

9. Meyns B, Dens J, Sergeant P, et al. Initial experiences with the Impella device in patients with cardiogenic shock - Impella support for cardiogenic shock. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. Dec 2003;51(6):312-317.

10. Smalling RW, Cassidy DB, Barrett R, et al. Improved regional myocardial blood flow, left ventricular unloading, and infarct salvage using an axial-flow, transvalvular left ventricular assist device. A comparison with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and reperfusion alone in a canine infarction model. Circulation. Mar 1992;85(3):1152-1159.

11. Boudoulas KD, Pederzolli A, Saini U, et al. Comparison of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: vascular complications and incidence of bleeding. Acute Card Care. Dec 2012;14(4):120-124.

12. Manzo-Silberman S, Fichet J, Mathonnet A, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assistance in post cardiac arrest shock: comparison of intra aortic blood pump and IMPELLA Recover LP2.5. Resuscitation. May 2013;84(5):609-615.

13. 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. Nov 4 2008;52(19):1584-1588.

14. Lauten A, Engstrom AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail. Jan 2013;6(1):23-30.

15. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. Sep 2 2013.

Conflict of Interest:

Dr. Manzo-Silberman reports personal fees from ABIOMED, non-financial support from MAQUET.

Submitted on 03/12/2013 7:00 PM GMT
"Re: ""Warden K et al: Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock"
16 February 2014
Spyridon D. Moulopoulos

In their personal conclusions of this excellent review on mechanical support for

post-myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (PMICS) the authors state in conne-

ction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABC) that it is disappointing to see the

negative results of recent prospective studies.

In the modern era there is no doubt that intensive care treatment and recanali-

sation in PMICS may have limited the need for mechanical support. In fact though

many cardiologists are convinced, from personal experience and anecdotal evidence,

that there is still room for mechanical support in severe cases. The fact that recent

trials have not demonstrated a statistical benefit may be attributed to the difficulty

of accurately assessing the severity of PMICS in the randomised cases. PMICS is

a very complex condition affected by many known and probably many as yet un-

known factors, not considered during randomisation. In the meticulously organised

study by Thiele et al (1) for example 10 patients randomised in the IABC group

have died before insertion of the balloon .Thirty patients of the control group

were "crossed over" to the IABC group, 25 of them for violation of the protocol

at the discretion of the investigators.

Two more points may be pertinent: In the era before recanalisation , in a small

series of very severe PMICS (2) no patient survived among those that refused the

use of IABC or for several reasons the balloon could not be inserted, in comparison

to 29% one month survival of patients in the supported group. In another small (3)

series no patient survived if dobutamine infusion before IABC exceeded 8 ?gr/?g/

min.

One may still wonder therefore if , until new techniques are proven beneficial,

very severe cases of PMICS should be deprived of mechanical support to a

mechanical ailing system

References

1. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Nasman F et al: Intraaortic balloon pumping in acute

myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABC-SHOCK II):

final 12 moth results. Lancet 2013; 382:1638-1635.

2. Moulopoulos S, Stamatelopoulos S, Petrou P: Intraaortic balloon assistance

in intractable cardiogenic shock. Europ Heart J 1986; 7: 396-403

3. Moulopoulos S, Stamatelopoulos S, Nanas J et al: Effect of protracted dobu-

tamine infusion on survival in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with intra-

aortic balloon pumping. Chest 1993;103 : 248

Spyridon D Moulopoulos M.D..Sc. D. hon.

University of Athens Medical School

Dept of Clinical Therapeutics

e-mail: spmoul@ath.forthnet.gr

The author declares no conflict of interest

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Submitted on 16/02/2014 7:00 PM GMT