P Elliott Miller1, Michael A Solomon, Dorothea McAreavey. 1. 1Critical Care Medicine, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD. 2Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION: Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS: Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION: Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS: Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.
Authors: Bartley P Griffith; Mark B Anderson; Louis E Samuels; Walter E Pae; Yoshifumi Naka; O Howard Frazier Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2012-03-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: José P S Henriques; Dagmar M Ouweneel; Srihari S Naidu; Igor F Palacios; Jeffrey Popma; E Magnus Ohman; William W O'Neill Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: David J Askenazi; David T Selewski; Matthew L Paden; David S Cooper; Brian C Bridges; Michael Zappitelli; Geoffrey M Fleming Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Anthony Lemaire; Mark B Anderson; Leonard Y Lee; Peter Scholz; Thomas Prendergast; Andrew Goodman; Ann Marie Lozano; Alan Spotnitz; George Batsides Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jin M Cheng; Corstiaan A den Uil; Sanne E Hoeks; Martin van der Ent; Lucia S D Jewbali; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-07-18 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: David D Berg; Christopher F Barnett; Benjamin B Kenigsberg; Alexander Papolos; Carlos L Alviar; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Gregory W Barsness; Erin A Bohula; Joseph Brennan; James A Burke; Anthony P Carnicelli; Sunit-Preet Chaudhry; Paul C Cremer; Lori B Daniels; Andrew P DeFilippis; Daniel A Gerber; Christopher B Granger; Steven Hollenberg; James M Horowitz; James D Gladden; Jason N Katz; Ellen C Keeley; Norma Keller; Michael C Kontos; Patrick R Lawler; Venu Menon; Thomas S Metkus; P Elliott Miller; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; L Kristin Newby; Jeong-Gun Park; Nicholas Phreaner; Robert O Roswell; Steven P Schulman; Shashank S Sinha; R Jeffrey Snell; Michael A Solomon; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Wayne Tymchak; Sean van Diepen; David A Morrow Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Alexander Thomas; Sean van Diepen; Rachel Beekman; Shashank S Sinha; Samuel B Brusca; Carlos L Alviar; Jacob Jentzer; Erin A Bohula; Jason N Katz; Andi Shahu; Christopher Barnett; David A Morrow; Emily J Gilmore; Michael A Solomon; P Elliott Miller Journal: JACC Adv Date: 2022-08-26
Authors: Anders Aneman; Nicholas Brechot; Daniel Brodie; Frances Colreavy; John Fraser; Charles Gomersall; Peter McCanny; Peter Hasse Moller-Sorensen; Jukka Takala; Kamen Valchanov; Michael Vallely Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Keshava Rajagopal; Steven P Keller; Bindu Akkanti; Christian Bime; Pranav Loyalka; Faisal H Cheema; Joseph B Zwischenberger; Aly El Banayosy; Federico Pappalardo; Mark S Slaughter; Marvin J Slepian Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Keshava Rajagopal; Steven P Keller; Bindu Akkanti; Christian Bime; Pranav Loyalka; Faisal H Cheema; Joseph B Zwischenberger; Aly El Banayosy; Federico Pappalardo; Mark S Slaughter; Marvin J Slepian Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 8.790