Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Group Research Articles

Characterizing Adaptive Changes and Patient Survival After 2018 Donor Allocation Restructuring: A UNOS Database Analysis.

We sought to characterize adaptive changes to the revised United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation policy and estimate long-term survival trends for heart transplant (HTx) recipients. Patients listed for HTx between October 17, 2013 and September 30, 2021 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing database, and stratified into pre- and postpolicy revision groups. Subanalyses were performed to examine trends in device utilization for extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO), durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), microaxial support (Impella), and no mechanical circulatory support (non-MCS). Survival data post-HTx were fitted to parametric distributions and extrapolated to 5 years. We identified 27,523 HTx waitlist candidates during the study period, most of whom (n = 16,376) were waitlisted in the prepolicy change period. Overall, 19,554 patients underwent HTx during the study period (pre: 12,037 and post: 7517). Listings increased after the policy change for ECMO ( P < 0.01), Impella ( P < 0.01), and IABP ( P < 0.01) patients. Listings for LVAD ( P < 0.01) and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) patients decreased. HTx increased for ECMO ( P < 0.01), Impella ( P < 0.01), and IABP ( P < 0.01) patients after the policy change and decreased for LVAD ( P < 0.01) and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) patients. Waitlist survival increased for the overall ( P < 0.01), ECMO ( P < 0.01), IABP ( P < 0.01), and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) groups. Waitlist survival did not differ for the LVAD ( P = 0.8) and Impella ( P = 0.1) groups. Post-transplant survival decreased for the overall ( P < 0.01), LVAD ( P < 0.01), and non-MCS ( P < 0.01) populations. Allocation policy revisions have contributed to greater utilization of ECMO, Impella, and IABP, decreased utilization of LVADs and non-MCS, increased waitlist survival, and decreased post-HTx survival.

Acute-on-chronic heart failure leading to cardiogenic shock: any role for intra-aortic balloon pump? Results from a multicenter retrospective data collection

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None. Background Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation has been significantly reduced since IABP-SHOCK II trial did not show any clinical benefit in acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-related cardiogenic shock (CS)(1). For a long time, AMI has been recognized as the first cause of CS; however, in the last years, acute-on-chronic heart failure (HF)-CS has become predominant. We hypothesized that in HF-CS population the IABP may decrease mortality having a role in decreasing left ventricular afterload and improving peripheral perfusion(2). Purpose To investigate whether, in this phenotypical category of cardiogenic shock, IABP could improve 28-days mortality. Methods Multicenter retrospective observational study including adult HF-CS patients admitted in cardiac or general intensive care units in 3rd level centers. Hemodynamic variables before (T0) and after IABP implantation (T1), pharmacological support and outcome data were collected. Independent samples t-test was applied to assess any difference between IABP and non-IABP group; Kaplan-Meier and Cox’s regression (forward stepwise method) were performed as survival analysis on 28-days mortality. Results 160 patients (35.6% female, 61 [47-74] years-old) were included from three centers; overall mortality was 42.5%. 50% received IABP support; amongst IABP patients, 24 received further MCS with VA-ECMO (p &amp;lt;0.001) and 4 with Impella (p 0.120). Patients’ baseline characteristics are shown in Figure 1-A. IABP patients had lower 28-days mortality. Patients who received IABP were younger, had lower systolic blood pressure (SBP), pulse pressure (PP) and lactate levels at T0. In reference to catecholaminergic drugs, patients supported with IABP had lower norepinephrine doses and vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) at baseline. After IABP implantation, no significant difference between the two groups in the time variation of these parameters was observed (Figure 1-B). Survival analysis graphs are shown in Figure 2. At Cox’s regression, a significant effect on 28-days mortality was found for IABP (HR 0.510 [0.293-0.887], p 0.017), SCAI classification-stage D (HR 2.582 [1.315-5.072], p 0.006), VIS-T0 above 15 (HR 2.348 [1.407-3.921], p 0.001) and SBP-T0 above 95 mmHg (HR 1.361 [1.016-1.823], p 0.039); no significant association was found for age above 61 years (overall median value) (p 0.091), mechanical ventilation (p 0.367), PP-T0 (0 0.081) and lactate-T0 (p 0.227). Conclusions Considering the specific pathophysiology of HF-CS, IABP may have a role in reducing mortality. These retrospective data need to be validated and compared with those deriving from ongoing randomized controlled trials(3).

Bridge-to-transplant temporary mechanical circulatory support and risk of allosensitization.

Since the 2018 change in the US adult heart allocation policy, more patients are bridged-to-transplant on temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). Previous studies indicate that durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) may lead to allosensitization. The goal of this study was to assess whether tMCS implantation is associated with changes in sensitization. We included patients evaluated for heart transplants between 2015 and 2022 who had alloantibody measured before and after MCS implantation. Allosensitization was defined as development of new alloantibodies after tMCS implant. A total of 41 patients received tMCS before transplant. Nine (22.0%) patients developed alloantibodies following tMCS implantation: 3 (12.0%) in the intra-aortic balloon pump group (n=25), 2 (28.6%) in the microaxial percutaneous LVAD group (n=7), and 4 (44.4%) in the veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation group (n=9)-p=.039. Sensitized patients were younger (44.7±11.6 years vs. 54.3±12.5 years, p=.044), were more likely to be sensitized at baseline - 3 of 9 (33.3%) compared to 2 out of 32 (6.3%) (p=.028) and received more transfusions with red blood cells (6 (66.6%) vs. 8 (25%), p=.02) and platelets (6 (66.6%) vs. 5 (15.6%), p=.002). There was no significant difference in tMCS median duration of support (4 [3,15] days vs. 8.5 [5,14.5] days, p=.57). Importantly, out of the 11 patients who received a durable LVAD after tMCS, 5 (45.5%) became sensitized, compared to 4 out of 30 patients (13.3%) who only had tMCS-p=.028. Our findings suggest that patients bridged-to-transplant with tMCS, without significant blood product transfusions and a subsequent durable LVAD implant, have a low risk of allosensitization. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings and determine whether risk of sensitization varies by type of tMCS and duration of support.

The use of intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiac surgery

Background: Objective of the study was to determine the incidence of use, indications, complications of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and its impact on outcome. Methods: Retrospective study of adult cardiac surgical patients presenting for cardiac surgery at Queen Alia Heart Institute in the period of time between September 2023 and February 2024. Patients’ demographic, clinical, perioperative data were recorded and analysed. Time of initiation of intra-aortic balloon, indications and monitoring for complications were observed by the authors. Patients were divided into two groups according to the use of IABP; the IABP group and the non-IABP group. Both groups were compared regarding outcome. Ethical committee approval obtained. Results: Data from 202 adult cardiac surgeries was analysed. Average age of patients was 57.2 years. Patients were 34 females (16.8%) and 168 males (83.2%). Most surgeries were elective (93.6%), while urgent surgeries comprised 3.5% and emergency surgeries were 3%. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was the most common procedure (78.2%). The IABP was most commonly used after combined procedures (50%) and to a lesser extent after isolated CABG (15.3%). IABP was inserted least frequently pre-operatively (10.7%), followed by postoperative insertion (35.7%), while intraoperative insertion to aid weaning from CPB was most common (53.6%). Patients from the IABP group were older, had longer CPB time (136.7 minutes) and AXC times (70.5 minutes), they also spent around 2 days more in the ICU and around 4 days more in hospital. Conclusions: IABP was most commonly utilised for combined procedures, after prolonged CPB and aortic cross clamping. The use of IABP was associated with delayed tracheal extubation, longer ICU stay, longer hospitalisation, and higher rates of blood transfusion, higher incidence of re-opening and higher mortality.

Outcomes in Heart Transplant Recipients by Bridge to Transplant Strategy When Using the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System.

The last several years have seen a rise in use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to bridge heart transplant recipients. A controlled hypothermic organ preservation system, the SherpaPak Cardiac Transport System (SCTS), was introduced in 2018 and has grown in utilization with reports of improved posttransplant outcomes. The Global Utilization And Registry Database for Improved heArt preservatioN (GUARDIAN)-Heart registry is an international, multicenter registry assessing outcomes after transplant using the SCTS. This analysis examines outcomes in recipients bridged with various MCS devices in the GUARDIAN-Heart Registry. A total of 422 recipients with donor hearts transported using SCTS were included and identified. Durable ventricular assist devices (VADs) were used exclusively in 179 recipients, temporary VADs or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in 197, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in 14 recipients. Average ischemic times were over 3.5 hours in all cohorts. Severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD) posttransplant increased across groups (4.5% VAD, 5.1% temporary support, 21.4% ECMO), whereas intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (18.2 days) and total hospital stay (39.4 days) was longer in the ECMO cohort than the VAD and IABP groups. A comparison of outcomes of MCS bridging in SCTS versus traditional ice revealed significantly lower rates of both moderate/severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and severe PGD in the SCTS cohort; however, upon propensity matching only the reductions in moderate/severe RV dysfunction were statistically significant. Use of SCTS in transplant recipients with various bridging strategies results in excellent outcomes.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Strategies in Takotsubo Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review.

Takotsubo syndrome is, by definition, a reversible form of acute heart failure. If cardiac output is severely reduced, Takotsubo syndrome can cause cardiogenic shock, and mechanical circulatory support can serve as a bridge to recovery. To date, there are no recommendations on when to use mechanical circulatory support and on which device is particularly effective in this context. Our aim was to determine the best treatment strategy. A systematic literature research and analysis of individual patient data was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed according to PRISMA guidelines. Our research considered original works published until 31 July 2023. A total of 93 publications that met the inclusion criteria were identified, providing individual data from 124 patients. Of these, 62 (50%) were treated with veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (va-ECLS), and 44 (35.5%) received a microaxial left ventricular assist device (Impella). Eighteen patients received an Impella CP and twenty-one an Impella 2.5. An intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) without other devices was used in only 13 patients (10.5%), while other devices (BiVAD or Tandem Heart) were used in 5 patients (4%). The median initial left ventricular ejection fraction was 20%, with no difference between the four device groups except for the IABP group, which was less affected by cardiac output failure (p = 0.015). The overall survival was 86.3%. Compared to the other groups, the time to cardiac recovery was shorter with Impella (p < 0.001). Though the Impella treatment is new, our analysis may show a significant benefit of Impella compared to other MCS strategies for cardiogenic shock in Takotsubo syndrome.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction with Ventricular Septal Rupture

Background: An intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the device most frequently used as a bridge to surgical repair in cases of myocardial infarction. However, robust evidence of IABP support for patients with postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (VSR) remains lacking. This study was aimed at assessing the effect of IABP support on 30-day prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by VSR. Methods: Retrospective data for patients with VSR after AMI at Fuwai Hospital between April 2002 and August 2020 were analyzed. Patients were initially stratified into two groups according to IABP implantation. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to determine the cumulative incidence of 30-day all-cause mortality. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent risk factors for 30-day mortality. Results: A total of 92 patients (mean age of 67.8 ± 8.3 years; 46.7% male) were included, 59 of whom underwent IABP implantation. Patients with rather than without IABP treatment were younger, were more often male, and had a higher body mass index and lower mean blood pressure at the onset of VSR. At 30 days, all-cause death occurred in 21 patients in the IABP group (35.59%) and 31 patients in the group without IABP (93.94%). After adjustment for age, sex, left atrial diameter, left ventricular diameter, perforation diameter and ventricular aneurysm, IABP support was found to be an independent protective predictor of 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 0.22; 95% confidence interval: 0.12 to 0.42; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: IABP support was associated with lower 30-day mortality in patients with VSR after AMI. Patients with postinfarction VSR with hemodynamic instability or cardiogenic shock could receive IABP treatment as a bridge to surgical repair.

Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation after cardiac arrest caused by acute coronary syndrome

BackgroundThis study evaluated the association between intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) caused by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and 30-day outcomes. MethodsThis study was a secondary analysis of data from the SAVE-J II study, a retrospective, multicenter registry study involving 36 participating institutions in Japan. Patients with cardiac arrest caused by ACS who received ECPR were divided into two groups depending on whether or not they received IABP. The primary outcome was 30-day survival. Subgroup analysis was performed to detect what type of patients were mostly associated with improved outcomes. ResultsOf 2,157 patients registered in the SAVE-J II study, 877 patients were enrolled in this study, 702 patients in the IABP group and 175 patients in the non-IABP group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not reveal a significant difference in 30-day survival (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.91–2.07, p = 0.13). In the subgroup analysis, 30-day survival among patients without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and stenosis of multiple coronary vessels were associated with IABP use. ConclusionsIABP use in patients with OHCA with ACS who received ECPR is not associated with 30-day survival. The use of IABP in patients who did not have PCI and have multiple coronary vessel stenoses warrants further study.

Abstract 11322: Comparative Outcomes of Impella and Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Left Ventricular Unloading Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock on Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with CS. Although Impella or Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular (LV) unloading for increased afterload during VA-ECMO therapy, there are scarce comparative outcomes data for these devices. Aims: To compare short-term outcomes of Impella and IABP in patients on VA-ECMO for CS. Methods: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes of CS patients requiring VA-ECMO based on multivariable regression and propensity score methods. Results: Of 15,980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4% patients, respectively. The proportion of patients managed with Impella for LV unloading significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% vs. 25.8%; P-trend&lt;0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher in Impella group (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and IABP (48.4%) groups. After adjustment, LV unloading using IABP vs ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98). LV unloading using Impella vs ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.91-1.31) but was associated with more bleeding (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.41) and more acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring hemodialysis (HD) (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.77). LV unloading with Impella vs IABP was associated with greater risk of AKI requiring HD (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.13-1.97), higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60), and high 40-day mortality (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17-1.32). Conclusions: LV unloading using Impella, compared with IABP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days in patients treated with VA-ECMO for CS, but was associated with increased adverse events. These findings suggest a need for further studies to guide clinical practice of LV unloading in CS.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump among Shockable Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis in a Multicenter, Nationwide Observational Study in Japan (The JAAM-OHCA Registry).

The effectiveness of IABP for shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has not been extensively investigated. This study aimed to investigate whether the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for non-traumatic shockable OHCA patients was associated with favorable neurological outcomes. From the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest registry, a nationwide multicenter prospective registry, we enrolled adult patients with non-traumatic and shockable OHCA for whom resuscitation was attempted, and who were transported to participating hospitals between 2014 and 2019. The primary outcome was 1-month survival with favorable neurological outcomes after OHCA. After adopting the propensity score (PS) inverse probability of weighting (IPW), we evaluated the association between IABP and favorable neurological outcomes. Of 57,754 patients in the database, we included a total of 2738 adult non-traumatic shockable patients. In the original cohort, the primary outcome was lower in the IABP group (OR with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)), 0.57 (0.48-0.68), whereas, in the IPW cohort, it was not different between patients with and without IABP (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.91-1.53). In adult patients with non-traumatic shockable OHCA, IABP use was not associated with 1-month survival with favorable neurological outcomes.

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Intra-aortic Balloon Pump and Levosimendan in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study was conducted to compare the postoperative outcomes between intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and levosimendan in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft(CABG) surgery.This meta-analysis was conducted following the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).For this meta-analysis, a literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE from inception to July 15, 2023. Keywords used to search for relevant articles included "intra-aortic balloon," "levosimendan," and "cardiac surgery" along with their key terms and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms. Outcomes assessed in this study included postoperative outcomeslike all-cause mortality, postoperative arrhythmias, need for inotropic support, length of intensive care unit stay (ICU) in days, and duration of mechanical ventilation in hours. Other outcomes included two-hour, six-hour, and 24-hourpostoperative central venous pressure (CVP), mean atrial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR). A total of eight studies were included in the pooled analysis.The pooled results found that the length of ICU stay and the duration of mechanical ventilation were significantly higher in patients receiving IABP. Additionally, the findings of this meta-analysis showed a higher need for inotropic support in patients receiving IABP compared to patients receiving levosimendan but the difference was statistically insignificant. However, no significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of mortality and arrhythmias. In conclusion, patients treated with levosimendan exhibited significant advantages, as they experienced shorter ICU stays and reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared to the IABP group and less requirement for inotropic support.

Prioritizing the Sickest Among the Sickest: A Matter of Tact and Moderation, but the Game Is Worth the Candle.

Prioritizing the Sickest Among the Sickest: A Matter of Tact and Moderation, but the Game Is Worth the Candle.

Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Rotational Atherectomy with Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support in Patients with Multivessel Disease and Low Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Background: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support was associated with better outcomes after rotational atherectomy (RA) in patients with multivessel disease and low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods: Between January 2015 and December 2021, 596 consecutive patients with severely calcified coronary lesions who underwent elective RA were retrospectively enrolled. Of these, a total of 156 patients were included in this study based on the propensity score matching and divided into two groups according to elective IABP insertion (IABP group, n = 80) or no insertion (non-IABP group, n = 76) before the RA procedure. The primary endpoints were procedural success and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) before discharge. The secondary endpoints were mortality and readmission due to heart failure (HF) during 90-day and 180-day follow-up. Results: 77 of patients (96.3%) in the IABP group and 72 of patients (94.7%) in the non-IABP group got procedural success (p = 0.714), separately. We had not observed significant differences in periprocedural complications except for less frequent hypotension in the IABP group (p &lt; 0.001). In-hospital MACE occurred in 7.5% of patients who received IABP support, which was significantly lower compared to the non-IABP group (p = 0.002). In addition, the cumulative incidence of readmission due to HF was also significantly lower in the IABP group during the 90-day (p &lt; 0.001) and 180-day (p = 0.004) follow-up. However, there were no significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of all-cause mortality. Conclusions: The present study suggests the important role of IABP support in improving the outcomes of patients after RA if multivessel disease and low LVEF are anticipated. Prophylactic IABP implantation was related to a lower incidence of in-hospital MACE, and readmission due to HF within 90-day and 180-day follow-up without significant impact on the procedural success and all-cause mortality.

Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and haemodynamic support with intra-aortic balloon versus Impella pump: Real-life single-centre preliminary results.

Patients and mechanical circulatory support assortment, as well as periprocedural and post-procedural clinical outcomes in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) underpinned by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD) are the subject of debate. The study aimed to identify differences between patients qualified for complex high-risk PCIs with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella pump support and to compare peri- and post-procedural clinical outcomes. The presented analysis is a single-center study, which comprised consecutive patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs performed with the pLVAD, either IABP or Impella. Patients included in the current analysis were recruited between January 2018 and December 2021. There were 28 (56%) patients in the Impella group and 22 (44%) in the IABP group. The primary endpoints included overall mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular events. Patients from the IABP group were significantly older, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and less frequent history of PCI, while the in-hospital risk of death assessed by EuroSCORE II remained similar in the Impella and IABP groups (median interquartile range [IQR] 2.8 [2-3.8] vs. 2.5 [1.8-5.2]; P = 0.73). Patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs with pLVAD support presented similar results during the follow-up, assessed by log-rank estimates in terms of MACE (P = 0.41) and mortality rate (P = 0.65). The use of pLVAD devices in patients undergoing complex high-risk PCIs, with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, is a promising treatment option for patients disqualified from surgery by cardiac surgeons.

1119 INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON PUMP AS BRIDGE TO HEART REPLACEMENT THERAPY IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK COMPLICATING CHRONIC HEART FAILURE

Abstract Background Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) could provide stabilization and improve prognosis in selected patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is a common percutaneous MCS device, characterized by wide availability, easy deployment and low complication rate. Despite its use in CS caused by acute myocardial infarction has been discouraged based on available evidence, recent data have renewed the interest in IABP as bridge to heart replacement therapy (HRT; heart transplantation or durable LVAD implant) in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acutely decompensated chronic heart failure. We sought to review our experience with IABP support in this population eligible for HRT at a large-volume transplant center. Methods We retrospectively reviewed all adult patients (&amp;gt; 18 years old) who received IABP at our center between 2016 and 2021. We included patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF &amp;lt; 40% for at least 3 months) eligible for heart replacement therapy (i.e. &amp;lt; 70 years old). Primary endpoint was IABP success defined as weaning to discharge or successful bridge to HRT without need for MCS escalation. In addition, in-hospital mortality without HRT and MCS complications were assessed. Results Study population consisted of 49 patients with mean age of 54±9 years, 84% of whom were male. Etiology was non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy in 72% of patients and mean LVEF was 19±5%. 12 patients (24%) were already listed for heart transplantation. 26 patients (53%) developed cardiogenic shock during hospitalization for acutely decompensated heart failure, while the others presented CS upon admission. IABP success was achieved in 32 (65%) of patients, of whom 13 (39%) were bridged to heart transplantation, 6 (18%) to durable LVAD, while 13 (43%) were weaned from support and discharged. 11 patients (22%) died without MCS upgrade or HRT, including one death occurring 18 days after IABP weaning. 6 patients (12%) required escalation of mechanical circulatory support: 5 with extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO), 2 of whom were transplanted, and 1 with axillary-implanted Impella 5.0 as effective bridge to durable LVAD. In-hospital mortality without HRT was 28%. Median duration of IABP support was 8 days (0-107). 66% of patients were treated with at least one and 12% with two or more inotropes. Complications occurred in 4 (9%) patients in IABP group, including 3 cases of limb ischemia without sequelae and one fatal bleeding not related to insertion site. Ischemic and bleeding complications were found in 4 out of 5 ECMO-supported patients. Among demographic and laboratory characteristics assessed at baseline and after 24 hours from shock, persistence of increased lactates (&amp;gt;2 mmol/l) at 24 hours and number of inotropic drugs were independently associated with both IABP failure and mortality. Conclusions In patients with cardiogenic shock complicating chronic heart failure, IABP appears a safe and effective bridge strategy to heart replacement therapy with favorable outcomes and acceptable complication rates. Persistence of markers of hypoperfusion and increased need for cardioactive drugs are associated with worse outcomes and should trigger evaluation for MCS escalation. More studies are needed to fully characterize the role and timing of IABP support in this clinical scenario.

Abstract 13175: The Effect of Impella Placement on Morbidity and Mortality in Cardiogenic Shockcomparing Outcomes of Two Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Modalities as Bridges to Advanced Heart Failure Therapy

Objectives: The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (PMCS) devices offers a means to maintain hemodynamic stability in pre-transplant patients. The Impella Heart Pump and the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) are two devices commonly employed for this purpose. We sought to compare the relative safety and efficacy of Impella vs IABP using a retrospective cohort of patients at our institution from 2014-2021. Methods: 239 patients received Impella support, and 220 patients received IABP. Of these patients, 26 receiving Impella and 49 receiving IABP were identified as pre-transplant/VAD. The incidences of 30-day mortality, major bleeding, hemolysis, limb ischemia, stroke, repositioning, and infection were recorded. The number of patients receiving transplants, VADs, Mechanical Circulatory Support escalation, and ECMO were also recorded. The relative risks of complications were calculated, and an alpha of 0.05 was assigned to identify significance. Results: The average age of the IABP group was 54.8 +/- 12.1 years with 39 males to 10 females. The average age of the Impella group was 44.8 +/- 15 years with 15 males to 11 females. There was no significant difference in pre-placement EF between these two groups (IABP EF = 19.28+/-8.62, Impella EF = 21.15+/-9.69; p = 0.4016). A significantly higher relative risk of mortality (RR = 3.23; 95% CI = 1.45-7.20, p = 0.0041), major bleeding (RR = 8.48; 95% CI = 3.2 - 22.45, p &lt; 0.00001), and hemolysis (RR = 35.2; 95% CI = 2.12-582, p = 0.0128) was noted in patients receiving Impella support. No significant difference in the incidence of limb ischemia, stroke, repositioning, or infection was observed between these two groups. A significantly higher number of patients receiving Impella support also required ECMO (p = 0.0003) Conclusions: These data suggest that a higher risk of mortality or major complications may exist for patients receiving Impella support pre-transplant/VAD. Further analysis is needed to correct for baseline differences between these two cohorts.

Intra‐Aortic Balloon Pump for Left Ventricular Unloading in Veno‐Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: The Last Remaining Indication in Cardiogenic Shock

Intra‐Aortic Balloon Pump for Left Ventricular Unloading in Veno‐Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: The Last Remaining Indication in Cardiogenic Shock

Survival Benefit In Single Organ Heart Transplant Supported By Intra-aortic Balloon Pump

Background The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most commonly used mechanical circulatory support device for adults with cardiogenic shock awaiting heart transplantation (HT). Historical data suggest worse outcomes for these patients and it's yet to be seen how the revision in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) donor allocation scheme in October 2018 may have influenced outcomes. Given this, we sought to identity the impact of IABP use on outcomes after HT in the era prior to the revision. Methods We identified adults listed for HT with IABP at time of listing (excluding patients receiving VAD or ECMO) utilizing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database between 2000 and 2018. The patients were followed until death, transplant or end of data availability. Waitlist mortality and successful HT were compared between groups using a Fine and Gray competing risk hazard regression model adjusted for known risk factors. 30- and 90-day post-HT mortality was assessed using adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. Results 25,325 patients were identified and 5% (N = 1256) were supported with an IABP at the time of listing. Those supported with an IABP had lower creatinine clearance, cardiac output and index, higher pulmonary capillary wedge, pulmonary artery systolic, diastolic and mean pressures (p < 0.01 for all). Unadjusted 30 day survival [mortality for IABP = 5.2% & no IABP = 4.4%; Log rank p = 0.0875] and 90 day survival [mortality for IABP = 7.7% & no IABP = 6.6%; Log rank p = 0.0503] post-transplant was worse in the IABP group (figure 1A & 1C). After adjustment, IABP use at the time of listing was significantly associated with a lower 30 day (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-00.80; p=0.0008) and 90 day mortality (HR 0.63, 95% CI 00.49-0.80; p = 0.0002) (figure 1B and 1D). Conclusion Among adults who successfully underwent HT, IABP support significantly decreased 30 and 90 day mortality. This suggests an important role for IABP support in HT even after the revision in the UNOS donor allocation scheme. Systematic efforts should be made to identify the cohort which will derive this benefit while awaiting HT. The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is the most commonly used mechanical circulatory support device for adults with cardiogenic shock awaiting heart transplantation (HT). Historical data suggest worse outcomes for these patients and it's yet to be seen how the revision in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) donor allocation scheme in October 2018 may have influenced outcomes. Given this, we sought to identity the impact of IABP use on outcomes after HT in the era prior to the revision. We identified adults listed for HT with IABP at time of listing (excluding patients receiving VAD or ECMO) utilizing the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients database between 2000 and 2018. The patients were followed until death, transplant or end of data availability. Waitlist mortality and successful HT were compared between groups using a Fine and Gray competing risk hazard regression model adjusted for known risk factors. 30- and 90-day post-HT mortality was assessed using adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. 25,325 patients were identified and 5% (N = 1256) were supported with an IABP at the time of listing. Those supported with an IABP had lower creatinine clearance, cardiac output and index, higher pulmonary capillary wedge, pulmonary artery systolic, diastolic and mean pressures (p < 0.01 for all). Unadjusted 30 day survival [mortality for IABP = 5.2% & no IABP = 4.4%; Log rank p = 0.0875] and 90 day survival [mortality for IABP = 7.7% & no IABP = 6.6%; Log rank p = 0.0503] post-transplant was worse in the IABP group (figure 1A & 1C). After adjustment, IABP use at the time of listing was significantly associated with a lower 30 day (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-00.80; p=0.0008) and 90 day mortality (HR 0.63, 95% CI 00.49-0.80; p = 0.0002) (figure 1B and 1D). Among adults who successfully underwent HT, IABP support significantly decreased 30 and 90 day mortality. This suggests an important role for IABP support in HT even after the revision in the UNOS donor allocation scheme. Systematic efforts should be made to identify the cohort which will derive this benefit while awaiting HT.

Outcomes Of IABP Vs Impella As A Bridge To Cardiac Transplantation - Analysis Of National United Network For Organ Sharing Database

<h3>Introduction</h3> Temporary mechanical circulatory support technology has advanced vastly in the last decade. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart transplant allocation system was updated in 2018 to accommodate the new Era. Among patients requiring temporary mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplantation, device choice relies on patient, practitioner, and institutional factors. To date, there is limited outcome data to contrast the different mechanical circulatory support platforms. <h3>Objective</h3> We aim to compare heart transplant survival in those bridged with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs Impella mechanical support. <h3>Methods</h3> Using the national UNOS database, we studied heart transplantation recipients listed on the new UNOS allocation system (oct 18^th 2018) and then compared survival of those bridged with IABP vs Impella to transplantation as status 2. The last date of follow up was Sep 4^th 2020. Cohort demographics, serum biochemistry, hemodynamic measurements, and organ support interventions were collected. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for continuous variables, Chi-square test for categorical variables, and Log-rank test for survival analysis. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 1721 patients (1524 IABP, 197 Impella) met our criteria, in whom, there was no difference between IABP vs Impella groups in age, BMI, or waiting list time (Table 1). We found that Impella was used more often in males (74% vs 88%, p <0.01) and Hispanics (9% vs 15% p <0.01). Clinical data are summarized in Table 1. Impella was associated with more mechanical ventilation (4 vs 16%, p <0.01), dialysis (3 vs 10%, p <0.01), and vasoactive medication support (79 vs 89%). Plasma free hemoglobin > 50 mg/dL was noted in 13.3% of the Impella group. Median survival (figure 1) was similar between IABP vs Impella (181 vs 183 days, p=0.92). <h3>Conclusion</h3> There was no observed difference in waiting time nor post-transplant survival between IABP vs Impella groups, however, the latter group was in more critical condition, and from that perspective, Impella seems to be an effective platform to bridge higher acuity status 2 patients.

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump or Impella 5.0/5.5 as a Bridge to Heart Transplantation?

<h3>Purpose</h3> Impella 5.0/5.5 provide superior hemodynamic support and left ventricle unloading compared to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) but may be associated with more device-related complications. Limited comparative data exists on their use in patients with advanced heart failure awaiting transplantation. We evaluated patients bridged to transplant (BTT) with IABP versus Impella 5.0 or 5.5 <h3>Methods</h3> A prospective institutional registry identified 142 patients undergoing either IABP (n=77) or Impella 5.0/5.5 (n=65) implantation as BTT between 1/1/2017 and 12/31/2020. Analysis included only patients who were transplanted. Outcomes included 6-months survival, 6-months freedom from cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV: stenosis ≥30% by angiography), non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (NF-MACE: myocardial infarction, new congestive heart failure, percutaneous coronary intervention, pacemaker implant, stroke) and treated rejections <h3>Results</h3> The percentage of transplanted patients who were bridged with either Impella 5.0/5.5 or IABP increased from 19% (19/100) in 2017 to 28.6% (30/105) in 2020. Successful transplantation occurred in 75% (49/65) patients bridged with Impella and 68.9% (53/77) bridged with IABP (p=0.39). Among transplanted patients, several baseline characteristics differed between the Impella and IABP groups, including longer device duration, more pre-transplant packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusions, and more multi-organ transplants in Impella patients (all p<0.05). At 6 months, post-transplant survival and stroke rates were similar (both p>0.5). In patients bridged with IABP, rates of rejections trended lower, while rates of CAV and NF-MACE were numerically higher, primarily driven by higher rates of pacemaker implant (Table) <h3>Conclusion</h3> The use of IABP and Impella 5.0/5.5 as BTT is increasing, with excellent 6-month survival. Registry analysis may help quantify the impact of increased blood product and induction therapy requirement associated with Impella 5.0/5.5 use