Intra-aortic Balloon Pump In Patients Research Articles

Safety and mid-term outcomes of impella compared to intra-aortic balloon pumping in patients who required mechanical cardiac support

Abstract Background Impella (Abiomed USA) is a promising alternative to improve prognosis in patients with cardiogenic shock requiring mechanical cardiac support (MCS). Despite of its advanced hemodynamic profile, its superiority regarding prognosis has not been established yet. Aims The aims of this study were to investigate safety and mid-term outcomes of Impella compared to IABP in patients who required MCS. Methods In this single-center study, consecutive 205 patients who required IABP or Impella from January 2017 to June 2023 were evaluated retrospectively. The primary outcome was 180-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were the rate of complications including hemolysis, thrombocytopenia, bleeding, limb ischemia, acute kidney impairment and stroke. Major complication was defined as major bleeding (BARC 3-5), limb ischemia and stroke. Results Of all patients, 62 (30.2%) received Impella and 143 (69.8%) IABP. The rate of patients required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support was not significantly different between two groups (31.4 % vs 38.7%; p=0.34. There were no significant differences in 180-day mortality between two groups (36.2% vs 31.1%; p=0.55). Further investigation according to SCAI classification demonstrated that the mortality rate in SCAI C group was significantly lower in Impella than IABP group (34.1% vs 6.7%; p=0.02), whereas there were not significant differences in mortality between two groups in SCAI D and E groups (54.8% vs 61.4%; p=0.71). The rate of major complications was significantly higher in Impella group (54.4% vs 72.1%; p=0.02). The rate of hemolysis (19.6% vs. 58.1%, p<0.01), thrombocytopenia (19.6% vs. 58.1%, p<0.01), limb ischemia (4.3% vs. 17.7%, p<0.01), acute kidney impairment (37.7% vs 64.5%, p<0.01) and initiation of renal replacement therapy (13.8% vs 29%, p=0.02) were significantly higher in Impella group. Multivariate analysis adjusting for Impella use, out of hospital cardiopulmonary arrest (OHCPA), initial lactate ≥60 md/dL and major complication, revealed that age ≥70 (hazard ratio (HR): 3.1, 95%CI: 1.73-5.61) and use of ECMO (HR: 4.3, 95%CI: 2.54-7.31) were independent predictor of mortality. The mortality rate arose up to 83.3% in patients with age ≥70, OHCPA and use of ECMO (HR: 9.7, 95%CI: 4.07-23.02). Conclusion The mortality rate did not differ between Impella and IABP, however Impella was associated with improved mortality in patients with SCAI C group. The complications were high likely seen in patients with Impella compared to IABP. Our findings indicate that Impella results in better outcomes with careful selection of patients, defining its indication and appropriate care. A further investigation would be of value to elucidate whether Impella improve prognosis.

Outcomes of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock undergoing heart transplantation

Abstract Background Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is generally used as a short-term device to maintain adequate organ perfusion in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). However, whether IABP improves clinical outcomes as a bridge therapy for heart transplant (HTx) remains controversial. Purpose Evaluate the survival rate 30 days after heart transplant (HTx) in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and CS using IABP pre transplant compared to non-IABP group. Methods We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with advanced HF and CS, admitted in the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary university center, between 2009 and 2020, who underwent HTx. Study group included patients submitted to IABP implantation before HTx, and a non-IABP group submitted to HTx without left ventricular mechanical support. Propensity Score Matching was used to pair the groups according to relevant clinical covariates. The primary outcome of survival rate 30 days after HTx was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results 326 were enrolled, 199 in IABP group and 127 in non-IABP group. For non-IABP and IABP group, respectively, the most frequent etiology was Chagas disease (29,9% and 47,2%, p=0,006) followed by idiopathic cardiomyopathy and ischemic cardiomyopathy, the majority of patients were male (63% and 61,3%, p=0,760), the mean age was 46,9 ± 14,4 and 46,5 ± 12 years (p=0,791) and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 25,9 ± 9,5% and 23,5 ± 5,9% (p=0,010). The Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) at ICU admission was compared in both groups, which was 36,8% ± 17,8% in non-IABP group and 32,6% ± 18,6% in IABP group (p=0,042). At 30 days after HTx, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (p=0,459) between the groups (IABP: 18,1% mortality; non-IABP: 14,2% mortality). Survival rate after HTx was also similar in patients with Chagas disease compared to the other etiologies in both study groups (IABP group: p=0,221; non-IABP group: p=0,421). Conclusion In patients with advanced HF and CS submitted to HTx, the survival rate 30 days after HTx was equivalent in the IABP and non-IABP groups. In patients with Chagas disease the survival was also similar compared to other etiologies in both groups.Characteristics according to groupsKaplan-Meier survival estimates

Hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with advanced heart failure and cardiogenic shock waiting heart transplant

Abstract Background The use of intra-aortic ballon pump (IABP) as a bridge therapy in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock (CS) waiting heart transplant (HTx) remains under debate. IABP can be an available device to improve hemodynamic conditions of these patients until HTx. Purpose Evaluate the hemodynamic effects of IABP and its efficacy in patients with advanced HF and CS waiting HTx. Methods We retrospectively analyzed from a single center intensive care unit, between 2009 and 2020, patients with advanced HF with optimized intravenous drugs that required IABP placement before HTx. Changes in oxygen central venous saturation (ScvO2), arterial lactate, renal function, and use of vasoactive drugs before and 96 hours after IABP insertion were evaluated. Patients with acute myocardial infarction and implant of ventricular assist device before HTx were excluded. Results A total of 199 patients (mean age 46,5 ± 12 years) were included. Median time of IABP onset to HTx was 20 days. Mean left ventricle ejection fraction was 23,5 ± 5,9%, 53,7% of patients had moderate to severe right ventricular dysfunction and the most frequent etiology was Chagas disease (47,2%, n=94). Before the IABP placement, 97,47% of patients were using dobutamine, 19,29% milrinone, 58,08% nitroprusside and 17,7% norepinephrine. Clinical and laboratory data were compared before and 96 hours after IABP therapy. ScvO2 increased from 49,9% to 66,85% (p<0,001), lactate decreased from 21,91 mg/dl to 12,6 mg/dl (p<0,001), creatinine decreased from 2,04 mg/dL to 1,72 mg/dL (p=0,301) and urine output increased from 1690,12 mL/24h to 2193,12 mL/24h (p<0,001). These differences were maintained until the day before HTx. Use of nitroprusside increased from 58,08 to 63,59% (p=0,154), and the use of norepinephrine decreased from 17,7% to 6,63% (p<0,001). Conclusion IABP improves tissue perfusion, renal function, and hemodynamic status in patients with advanced HF and CS and can be an effective method of circulatory support as a bridge therapy to HTx.Laboratory data pre and post-IABPVasoactive Drugs pre and post-IABP

Effectiveness of an Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a nationwide inpatient database study

Abstract Background/Introduction Previous studies have suggested that left ventricular (LV) unloading with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assist device (Impella) in combination with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is associated with lower mortality; however, it is unclear which is better. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LV unloading with an Impella versus IABP on in-hospital mortality and other clinical outcomes. Methods Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from September 28, 2016, to March 31, 2022, we identified inpatients who received an Impella or IABP in combination with ECMO (ECPella or ECMO+IABP group, respectively). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, length of ECMO, total hospitalization cost, and complications including major bleeding, an ischemic stroke, vascular complications, and renal replacement therapy during hospitalization. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the outcomes between the groups. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding patients who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Results Of 14,525 eligible patients, 603 (4.2%) received ECPella and 13,922 (96%) received ECMO+IABP. After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (58.9% versus 56.6%; risk difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, -3.9% to 8.5%). A Kaplan–Meier analysis with the log-rank test showed no significant difference in the 60-day in-hospital mortality between the two groups (P value = 0.114) (Figure 1). The ECPella group had a longer hospital stay (mean 42.8 days versus 33.7 days; risk difference, 9.1 days; 95% confidence interval, 2.6 to 15.6 days), a higher total hospitalization cost (12,573,000 yen versus 6,857,000 yen; risk differences, 5,716,000 yen; 95% confidence interval, 4,439,000 yen to 6,993,000 yen), and more frequent major bleeding (8.1% versus 5.8%; risk difference, 2.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.007% to 4.0%), vascular complications (4.1% versus 2.2%; risk difference, 2.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.04% to 3.9%), and renal replacement therapy during hospitalization (50.6% versus 41.1%; risk difference, 9.5%; 95% confidence interval, 3.0% to 15.9%) than the ECMO+IABP group (Figure 2). The results of the sensitivity analyses, excluding 6,360 patients (44%) who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, showed similar results to those for the main analyses. Conclusions This nationwide inpatient database study showed that ECPella was not associated with a survival benefit but was associated with a longer hospital stay, a higher total hospitalization cost, and more complications than ECMO+IABP.Figure 1Figure 2

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing urgent cardiac bypass surgery.

In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), either with or without cardiogenic shock, mechanical circulatory support with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is not associated with lower mortality. However, in STEMI patients undergoing urgent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), preoperative insertion of an IABP has been suggested to reduce mortality. In this study, the effect of preoperative IABP use on mortality in STEMI patients undergoing urgent CABG was investigated. All consecutive STEMI patients undergoing urgent CABG in asingle centre between 2000 and 2018 were studied. The primary outcome, 30-day mortality, was compared between patients with and without apreoperative IABP. Subgroup analysis and multivariable analysis using apropensity score and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed to adjust for potential confounders. Atotal of 246 patients were included, of whom 171 (69.5%) received apreoperative IABP (pIABP group) and 75 (30.5%) did not (non-pIABP group). In the pIABP group, more patients suffered from cardiogenic shock, persistent ischaemia and reduced left ventricular function. Unadjusted 30-day mortality was comparable between the pIABP and the non-pIABP group (13.3% vs 12.3%, p = 0.82). However, after correction for confounders and inverse probability treatment weighting preoperative IABP was associated with reduced 30-day mortality (relative risk 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.88). In patients with STEMI undergoing urgent CABG, preoperative insertion of an IABP is associated with reduced mortality.

Impact of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump on outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left-main coronary artery disease.

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) could improve operative outcomes by augmenting the diastolic coronary blood flow. Data on preoperative IABP use in patients with left-main coronary artery (LMCA) disease are limited. This study aimed to characterize patients who received preoperative IABP before CABG for LMCA and evaluate its effect on postoperative outcomes. This multicenter retrospective cohort study that included consecutive 914 patients who underwent CABG for unprotected LMCA disease from January 2015 to December 2019 in 14 tertiary referral centers. Patients were grouped according to the preoperative IABP insertion into patients with IABP (n=101) and without IABP (n=813). Propensity score matching adjusting for preoperative variables, with 1:1 match and a caliber of 0.03 identified 80 matched pairs. The primary outcomes used in propensity score matching were cardiac mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). IABP was commonly inserted in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI), chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, and congestive heart failure. IABP patients had higher EuroSCORE [ES >8%: 95 (11.86%) vs. 40 (39.60%), P<0.001] and SYNTAX {29 [interquartile range (IQR) 25-35] vs. 33 (IQR 26-36); P=0.02} scores. Preoperative cardiogenic shock and arrhythmia were more prevalent in patients with IABP, while acute coronary syndrome was more prevalent in patients without IABP. After matching, there was no difference in vasoactive inotropic score between groups [3.5 (IQR 1-7.5) vs. 6 (IQR 1-13.5), P=0.06], and lactate levels were nonsignificantly higher in patients with IABP [2.4 (IQR 1.4-4.5) vs. 3.1 (IQR 1.05-7.75), P=0.05]. There were no differences between groups in acute kidney injury [20 (25%) vs. 26 (32.5%), P=0.34], cerebrovascular accidents [3 (3.75%) vs. 4 (5%), P>0.99], heart failure [5 (6.25%) vs. 7 (8.75%), P=0.75], MI [7 (8.75%) vs. 8 (10%), P>0.99], major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [10 (12.5%) vs. 17 (21.25%), P=0.21], and cardiac mortality [6 (7.50%) vs. 14 (17.50%), P=0.09]. Patients who received IABP had longer ventilation times [8.5 (IQR 6-23) vs. 15.5 (IQR 5-50.5) h, P=0.03] and intensive care unit (ICU) stays [3 (IQR 2-5) vs. 4 (IQR 2-7.5) days, P=0.01]. Preoperative IABP in patients with LMCA might not be associated with reduced cardiac mortality or hospital complications. IABP could increase the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, and its use should be individualized for each patient.

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

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&amp;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.

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 381: Simultaneous Use of VA-ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA) Improves Mid-Term Mortality in Patients With Refractory Cardiac Arrest or Cardiac Shock Who Required VA-ECMO

Background: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is an effective therapy to rescue patients with refractory cardiogenic shock, including cardiac arrest. VA-ECMO increase damaged left ventricular (LV) afterload. The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been often used as the additional circulatory support for LV unloading. However, the effectiveness of combining VA-ECMO with IABP has not been definitively established. The Impella , a percutaneous micro-axial pump, can reduce damaged LV preload with circulatory support, which may have significant effect on clinical outcome by concomitant use of VA-ECMO and Impella (ECPELLA). Objective: This single-site cohort study aimed to assess the impact of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO with or without IABP in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock who received VA-ECMO treatment. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 275 consecutive patients who received VA-ECMO from January 2012 through December 2022 in our institute. The patients were divided into two groups, ECEPLLA (n = 81) and VA-ECMO with or without IABP (n = 194). The primary outcome of this study was the 180-day all-cause mortality rate. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender ratio, prevalence of coronary risk factors, serum lactate levels at the emergency room (ER), the rate of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR), and instances of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between the groups. The ECPELLA groups had a significantly higher rate of acute coronary syndrome and a lower prevalence of chronic kidney disease. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated that the 180-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ECPELLA group compared to the VA-ECMO group (p &lt; 0.001). Multivariate cox proportional hazard analysis revealed that age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27 [10 years increase]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.42, p &lt; 0.001), E-CPR (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00, p = 0.04), lactate level at ER (HR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04-1.10, p &lt; 0.001), and ECPELLA (HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.40-0.76, p &lt; 0.001) were significantly associated with the 180-day all-cause mortality. Conclusion: ECPELLA was associated with improvement of mid-term mortality in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock who received VA-ECMO.

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.

Beneficial Effects of IABP in Anterior Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Background and Objectives. Recent guidelines have downgraded the routine use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Despite this, its use in clinical practice remains high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of the IABP in patients with STEMI complicated by CS undergoing primary PCI (pPCI), focusing on patients with anterior MI in whom a major benefit has been previously hypothesized. Materials and Methods. We enrolled 2958 consecutive patients undergoing pPCI for STEMI in our department from 2005 to 2018. Propensity score matching and mortality analysis were performed. Results. CS occurred in 246 patients (8.3%); among these patients, 145 (60%) had anterior AMI. In the propensity-matched analysis, the use of the IABP was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (39.3% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.032) in the subgroup of patients with anterior STEMI. Conversely, in the whole group of CS patients and in the subgroup of patients with non-anterior STEMI, IABP use did not have a significant impact on mortality. Conclusions. The use of the IABP in cases of STEMI complicated by CS was found to improve survival in patients with anterior infarction. Prospective studies are needed before abandoning or markedly limiting the use of the IABP in this clinical setting.

Left Ventricular Unloading With Impella Versus IABP in Patients With VA-ECMO: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) use for circulatory support in cardiogenic shock results in increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The use of concomitant Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) have been proposed as adjunct devices for LV unloading. The authors sought to compare head-to-head efficacy and safety outcomes between the 2 LV unloading strategies. We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing the use of Impella to IABP in patients on VA-ECMO. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, stroke, limb ischemia, need for continuous renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and hemolysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval and heterogeneity statistic I2 were calculated using a random-effects model. A total of 7 observational studies with 698 patients were included. Patients on VA-ECMO unloaded with Impella vs IABP had similar risk of short-term all-cause mortality, defined as either 30-day or in-hospital mortality- 60.8% vs 64.9% (RR 0.93 [0.71 to 1.21], I2=71%). No significant difference was observed in transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, stroke, or limb ischemia between the 2 strategies. However, the use of VA-ECMO with Impella was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (57.2% vs 39.7%) (RR 1.66 [1.12 to 2.44], I2=82%) and hemolysis (31% vs 7%) (RR 4.61 [1.24 to 17.17], I2=66%) compared with VA-ECMO, along with IABP. In conclusion, in patients requiring VA-ECMO for circulatory support, the concomitant use of Impella or IABP had comparable short-term mortality. However, Impella use was associated with increased risk of major bleeding and hemolysis.

Effect of peri-operative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting on outcomes in a resource limited setting.

Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion for diminished myocardial function is standard of care in cardiac surgery. Previous studies have suggested a possible benefit to IABP support before surgery with regards to outcomes and complications. However, there are conflicts with other studies suggesting no significant benefit. Optimal time of insertion, whether preoperative or perioperative (intra-operative and post-operative), has yet to be defined. A retrospective, hospital records-based chart review was conducted for patients admitted to our center from January 2015 to December 2019 for coronary bypass surgery necessitating IABP insertion. Cases were stratified according to the timing of insertion and analyzed according to surgical outcomes and complication rates. Out of 97 patients, 84.5% underwent preoperative IABP insertion while 15.5% of patients received perioperative (Intra-operative or post-operative) insertion. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with perioperative IABP insertion as compared to the preoperative group (60% vs 20.7%, p = 0.003). However, there were no significant differences between 30-day readmission rates in the two groups (9.8% vs 6.7%, p = 1.000). Length of stay was also higher in patients with preoperative insertion of IABP (p = 0.032), with no significant difference in ICU stay (p = 0.107). Perioperative IABP patients had higher rates of arrhythmias (46.7%, p = 0.042) and reopening of patient (33.3%, p = 0.028). Our study shows improved mortality in patients with preoperatively inserted IABP. This may be beneficial for high-risk patients undergoing CABG surgery. Expanding the use of IABP before CABG in third world countries such as Pakistan may improve overall survival for patients.

Clinical implication of intra-aortic balloon pumping in patients with Takotsubo syndrome and cardiogenic shock.

Clinical implication of intra-aortic balloon pumping in patients with Takotsubo syndrome and cardiogenic shock.

Comparison between Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Levosimendan as Treatment Modalities for Cardiogenic Shock Post Cardiac Surgery

Purpose: Post cardiac surgery cardiogenic shock is one of the major life threatening complications of open heart surgeries. Two modalities are widely used to improve the cardiac output and overcome the acute postoperative complication beside other conventional treatment including mechanical ventilator, inotropes and vasopressors. Those modalities are levosimendan and Intra-aortic balloon pump. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prognosis of levosimendan vs IABP in patients who developed cardiogenic shock post cardiac surgery.&#x0D; Methodology: This was a prospective observational study conducted as national heart institute, Egypt on 50 patients who developed cardiogenic shock post cardiac surgery and managed by either levosimendan or Intra-aortic balloon Pump (IABP) beside other conventional therapies. Patients were then divided into two groups according to the modality used. Group I: patients who were managed by levosimendan and group II: patients who were managed by IABP. Two groups were then compared according to baseline preoperative characteristics and in-hospital course and one month follow up post discharge echocardiography.&#x0D; Findings: No significant difference regarding between in-hospital mortality between levosimendan, 44% and IABP, 52% P value 0.5. Levosimendan was associated with significantly shorter ICU stay, 5.56±2.85 compared to IABP, 8±3.34 days (P value 0.02). Levosimendan seems to be a better option than IABP or at least equivalent to it in postoperative cardiogenic shock.&#x0D; Recommendations: Levosimendan is an alternative cost effective modality for patients with post-operative low cardiac output syndrome especially when IABP isn’t available.&#x0D;

Intra-aortic balloon pump use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients who underwent extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

AimTo investigate the effect of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) on short-term neurological outcomes and survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). MethodsWe retrospectively analysed data collected between June 2014 and December 2019 from the Japanese OHCA registry. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent ECPR were included. We divided the patients into those who received IABP and those who did not receive IABP. The primary outcome was the 30-day favourable neurological outcomes in survived patients. The secondary outcome was the 30-day survival. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for confounding factors after multiple imputations of missing data. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using logistic regression analysis after PSM to adjust for confounding factors after IABP initiation. ResultsAmong 2135 adult patients who underwent ECPR, 1173 received IABP. In 842 matched patients, IABP use was associated with survival (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.39–2.83; p < 0.001). However, IABP use was not significantly associated with the 30-day neurologically favourable outcome in 190 survived patients (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.79–1.89; p = 0.36). ConclusionThe use of IABP in patients with OHCA who underwent ECPR was associated with 30-day survival. Among survived patients, there was no significant association between IABP use and 30-day neurological outcome. A further well-designed prospective study is needed.

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Versus Impella in Managing Cardiogenic Shock After Myocardial Infarction: Literature Review.

Despite early revascularization and supportive medical therapies, acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) remains the leading cause of death in patient's with myocardial infarction. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been the device of choice for these patients but has failed to show mortality benefit over medical therapy alone. The Impella (AbioMed, Danvers, Massachusetts) is a more recently developed alternative in bridging patients to recovery. The aim of this study was to evaluate available evidence comparing mortality with the use of Impella (2.0 or CP) versus IABP in patients with AMICS. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched to find articles comparing the outcomes of IABP versus Impella in AMICS patients. A total of 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-day mortality was the primary outcome observed. Secondary outcomes included myocardial recovery and complications from device implantation. All studies support that there is no statistically significant reduction in mortality when utilizing the Impella over the IABP. Further research in an adequately powered randomized clinical trial is needed to shed light on the clinical characteristics of patients after AMICS who would benefit from 1 type of mechanical circulatory support over another. The therapy chosen is determined by provider discretion and skill set, as well as device availability. It is important for all care team members, including the critical care nurse, to understand the implications and complications associated with each therapy, so care can be catered to the individual patient's needs.

Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock of stages A and B

This article presents two clinical cases of patients with myocardial infarction and stage A (at risk) and B (beginning) cardiogenic shock who underwent intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP). In patients with a high risk of classic cardiogenic shock and/or the no-reflow phenomenon, stenting of the infarct-related coronary artery during this type of mechanical circulatory support was performed without complications. Theoretical and practical aspects of using IABP at different stages of cardiogenic shock are discussed.

Comparative study between levosimendan and intra-aortic balloon pump in high risk patients undergoing beating heart coronary artery bypass surgery

Background: Preoperative left ventricular dysfunction is an independent risk factor for perioperative mortality and morbidity and is also associated with postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. IABP improved outcomes in high-risk cardiac patients. However, installation of the balloon has many disadvantages. Recently, a new drug named levosimendan is commonly used as an inotropic support with no increase oxygen demand of myocardium. Objective: The purpose of our study was to compare the efficiency of levosimendan versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with poor left ventricular function undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with ejection fraction less than 35%. Patients and Methods: Forty patients with elective multi-vessel off-pump CABG at Al-Azhar University, Air force Specialized and Al-Assema Hospitals were randomized into 2 groups, according to the treatment they received – either levosimendan (Levo group) or intra-aortic balloon counter pulsation (IABP group), and compared with respect to The use of inotropic drugs, Hemodynamics, ICU stay, hospital stay and in-hospital mortality. Results: There were no differences in preoperative characteristics including patients’ age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities. The Levosemindan group had shorter ICU and hospital stays as compared to IABP group with comparable hemodynamic functions, time of mechanical ventilation and mortality rate.

Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute advanced heart failure. Results from a single-center study

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Patients with advanced heart failure are frequently referred to cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) for hemodynamic support. Despite optimum pharmacological therapy many of these patients persist in critical condition, demanding short term circulatory support until recovery or heart transplantation. Intra-aortic balloon pump is commonly used in patients with advanced heart failure in order to stabilize hemodynamically compromised patients as bridge to decision for further therapies. Purpose To investigate the outcomes of patients with acute advanced heart failure referred to cardiac intensive care unit and supported with short term mechanical support. To explore the hemodynamic effects of the Intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in these patients. Material &amp; Method We retrospectively analyzed the data from 104 patients with acute advanced heart failure (either as worsening of existing symptoms of chronic HF or as first onset of HF). All patients had severe left ventricular dysfunction, which was frequently associated with right ventricular dysfunction and increased NT pro BNP levels. Demographic data were collected including co-morbidities. Laboratory data included NT-pro BNP, total bilirubin, serum creatinine, urea and baseline e GFR (MDRD Formula). All patients received IABP support and underwent right heart catheterization. Measurements were made before and after the insertion of the IABP. The study has been approved by the Scientific Committee and the Ethics Committee of the Hospital. Results The mean age of the sample was 44 ± 12 years. 76 patients (73, 08%) were male. 20 patients (19, 23%) were of ischemic etiology. The median time on IABP support for the entire cohort was 13 days (3 – 41, 25). There was statistically significant decrease in the NT-pro BNP levels (p&amp;lt;0, 0001). There was improvement in renal function (e GFR (p&amp;lt;0, 0001) and urea levels (p&amp;lt; 0,001)). There was statistically significant improvement in the right heart catheterization measurements (decrease of the right atrium pressure (p &amp;lt;0, 0001), of the PA pressure (p&amp;lt;0,001), and of the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (p&amp;lt;0,001)). IABP provided clinical stabilization in 88 patients (87, 62%), that is completed pre-transplant evaluation and proceeded in surgery with permanent mechanical support or heart transplantation or transfer to regular ward, while 16 patients (15, 38%) ended up in CICU while being on IABP. Conclusions In this single center study the use of IABP improved the laboratory findings and the hemodynamic status of patients admitted in the cardiac intensive care unit with acute advanced heart failure. It was an effective method of managing patients as bridge to decision for further therapies.