Is there a role for intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock? predictors of success

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Hospital Clínico San Carlos Madrid. Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a clinical challenge associated with unacceptable high mortality rates. Early revascularization is the cornerstone for CS management. However, CS patients usually requires further advanced therapies such as vasopressors and mechanical circulatory support devices. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is not routinely used in patients with CS according to the current recommendations. However, this device could be associated with potential benefit in selected patients and we believe it is underutilized. Our aim was to assess for potential predictors of success after IABP implantation in patients with CS. Methods From 2013 to 2023, 136 consecutive patients diagnosed with CS and admitted to an Acute Cardiac Care Unit in a tertiary care hospital were recruited. Demographic, clinical, and analytical variables were retrospectively collected. SCAI classification was used to define shock state. Patient were followed-up to November-2023 and clinical events were also recorded. For purposes of analysis, patients were classified in two groups: IABP success (N=70) and IABP failure (N=66). Success, in terms of IABP use, was defined as patient’s survival to the index event. Failure of IABP was defined as in-hospital death. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential predictors of success. Results Mean age was 67.2±12.2 years and 64.7% were females. There were no significant differences in cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities between groups: hypertension (56.6% vs 43.5%, p 0.132), diabetes (40.9% vs 59.1%, p 0.088), chronic kidney disease (50% vs 50%, p 0.800), previous stroke (53.9% vs 41.2%, p 0.857) in "Success-group" vs "Failure-group" respectively. STEMI was the most frequent cause of CS requiring an IABP (65.9%). Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction was more common in the "Success-group", whereas cardiac arrest was more common in the "Failure-group" (Table 1). Regarding the CS classification, patients with IABP failure were more frequently in SCAI D and E categories (Table 1). In addition, patients in the failure-group had worse hemodynamic and analytic parameters (Table 1) and the IABP failed to significantly improve them. There were no significant differences in coronary artery disease burden and treatment. Complete revascularization was accomplished in a similar proportion of patients in both groups (Table 1). The multivariate analysis showed that SCAI B&C states were independently associated with success after IABP implantation, whereas lactate level prior to IABP implantation was associated with failure (Table 2). Conclusion Selecting the appropriate timing for IABP implantation is critical for the prognosis, as success rates are higher in less advanced stages of cardiogenic shock. Preimplantation lactate levels are also associated with success rates.