open access

Ahead of print
Review Article
Published online: 2020-12-17
Get Citation

Can we have a rationalized selection of intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the catheterization laboratory?

Giulio Russo, Francesco Burzotta, Cristina Aurigemma, Daniela Pedicino, Enrico Romagnoli, Carlo Trani
DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0182
·
Pubmed: 33346366

open access

Ahead of print
Review articles
Published online: 2020-12-17

Abstract

Cardiac assistance represents an emerging issue in cardiovascular medicine. The evolution of invasive cardiology techniques is making the catheterization laboratory one of the main hospital sites where implantation of percutaneous ventricular assistance devices (PVADs) is discussed and performed. Among available PVADs, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are the most popular and offer completely different levels and ways to assist critical patients. The main settings calling for PVAD consideration in the catheterization laboratory are clinically indicated high-risk patients (CHIP) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and patients with cardiogenic shock or refractory cardiac arrest.  

In CHIP, PVAD serves the purpose of preventing hemodynamic collapse during PCI. This may also allow more extensive revascularizations and higher quality revascularization plans (imaging use, debulking, stent result optimization). IABP or Impella are more commonly selected whereas ECMO is seldom considered as a third option for highly selected patients. The “elective” nature of CHIP-PCI should allow careful procedure planning (peripheral artery disease assessment, access site selection and management) in order to minimize vascular/bleeding complications.

Cardiogenic shock is still associated with high mortality rates, and PVAD theoretically offers further recovery chances. The lack of benefit observed with systematic IABP use is currently prompting consideration of the roles of Impella and ECMO. Prolonged assistance is often needed. Thus, team decisions and shared protocols for PVAD selection have to be promoted, taking into consideration available resources and operators’ skills.

In this paper, we critically review the available data in the field and highlight the possible decision-making hubs that catheterization-laboratory teams may consider in order to rationalize PVAD selection.

Abstract

Cardiac assistance represents an emerging issue in cardiovascular medicine. The evolution of invasive cardiology techniques is making the catheterization laboratory one of the main hospital sites where implantation of percutaneous ventricular assistance devices (PVADs) is discussed and performed. Among available PVADs, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are the most popular and offer completely different levels and ways to assist critical patients. The main settings calling for PVAD consideration in the catheterization laboratory are clinically indicated high-risk patients (CHIP) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and patients with cardiogenic shock or refractory cardiac arrest.  

In CHIP, PVAD serves the purpose of preventing hemodynamic collapse during PCI. This may also allow more extensive revascularizations and higher quality revascularization plans (imaging use, debulking, stent result optimization). IABP or Impella are more commonly selected whereas ECMO is seldom considered as a third option for highly selected patients. The “elective” nature of CHIP-PCI should allow careful procedure planning (peripheral artery disease assessment, access site selection and management) in order to minimize vascular/bleeding complications.

Cardiogenic shock is still associated with high mortality rates, and PVAD theoretically offers further recovery chances. The lack of benefit observed with systematic IABP use is currently prompting consideration of the roles of Impella and ECMO. Prolonged assistance is often needed. Thus, team decisions and shared protocols for PVAD selection have to be promoted, taking into consideration available resources and operators’ skills.

In this paper, we critically review the available data in the field and highlight the possible decision-making hubs that catheterization-laboratory teams may consider in order to rationalize PVAD selection.

Get Citation

Keywords

extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump, percutaneous ventricular assist device, personalized medicine

About this article
Title

Can we have a rationalized selection of intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the catheterization laboratory?

Journal

Cardiology Journal

Issue

Ahead of print

Article type

Review Article

Published online

2020-12-17

DOI

10.5603/CJ.a2020.0182

Pubmed

33346366

Keywords

extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Impella
intra-aortic balloon pump
percutaneous ventricular assist device
personalized medicine

Authors

Giulio Russo
Francesco Burzotta
Cristina Aurigemma
Daniela Pedicino
Enrico Romagnoli
Carlo Trani

References (105)
  1. Stretch R, Sauer CM, Yuh DD, et al. National trends in the utilization of short-term mechanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes, and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(14): 1407–1415.
  2. Aurigemma C, Burzotta F, Russo G, et al. Definitions and clinical impact of revascularization completeness. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018; 66(5): 594–599.
  3. Romagnoli E, Burzotta F, Trani C, et al. EuroSCORE as predictor of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart. 2009; 95(1): 43–48.
  4. Coluccia V, Burzotta F, Romagnoli E, et al. EuroSCORE predicts long-term mortality of unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 167(4): 1232–1236.
  5. Burzotta F, Trani C, Doshi SN, et al. Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: Collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. Int J Cardiol. 2015; 201: 684–691.
  6. Burzotta F, Crea F. "Protected" PCI: time to act. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018; 66(5): 547–550.
  7. Généreux P, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, et al. Quantification and impact of untreated coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention: the residual SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(24): 2165–2174.
  8. O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012; 126(14): 1717–1727.
  9. De Silva K, Morton G, Sicard P, et al. Prognostic utility of BCIS myocardial jeopardy score for classification of coronary disease burden and completeness of revascularization. Am J Cardiol. 2013; 111(2): 172–177.
  10. Burzotta F, Russo G, Ribichini F, et al. Long-Term outcomes of extent of revascularization in complex high risk and indicated patients undergoing impella-protected percutaneous coronary intervention: report from the roma-verona registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2019; 2019: 5243913.
  11. Russo G, Burzotta F, D'Amario D, et al. Hemodynamics and its predictors during Impella-protected PCI in high risk patients with reduced ejection fraction. Int J Cardiol. 2019; 274: 221–225.
  12. Bergelson BA, Jacobs AK, Cupples LA, et al. Prediction of risk for hemodynamic compromise during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1992; 70(20): 1540–1545.
  13. Leistner DM, Dietrich S, Erbay A, et al. Association of left ventricular end-diastolic pressure with mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 96(4): E439–E446.
  14. Laschinger J, Grossi E, Cunningham J, et al. Adjunctive left ventricular unloading during myocardial reperfusion plays a major role in minimizing myocardial infarct size. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1985; 90(1): 80–85.
  15. Axelrod HI, Galloway AC, Murphy MS, et al. A comparison of methods for limiting myocardial infarct expansion during acute reperfusion--primary role of unloading. Circulation. 1987; 76(5 Pt 2): V28–V32.
  16. Santamore WP, Burkhoff D. Hemodynamic consequences of ventricular interaction as assessed by model analysis. Am J Physiol. 1991; 260(1 Pt 2): H146–H157.
  17. Kantrowitz A, Tjonneland S, Freed PS, et al. Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 1968; 203(2): 113–118.
  18. Weber KT, Janicki JS. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1974; 17: 602.
  19. Kern MJ, Aguirre F, Bach R, et al. Augmentation of coronary blood flow by intra-aortic balloon pumping in patients after coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993; 87(2): 500–511.
  20. Yoshitani H, Akasaka T, Kaji S, et al. Effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation on coronary pressure in patients with stenotic coronary arteries. Am Heart J. 2007; 154(4): 725–731.
  21. Takeuchi M, Nohtomi Y, Yoshitani H, et al. Enhanced coronary flow velocity during intra-aortic balloon pumping assessed by transthoracic Doppler echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43(3): 368–376.
  22. Kern MJ, Aguirre FV, Tatineni S, et al. Enhanced coronary blood flow velocity during intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in critically ill patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 21(2): 359–368.
  23. Basile E, Russo G, Leone AM. Principles of hemodynamics for mechanical circulatory support: patho-physiological key aspects of assisted PCI. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018; 66(5): 600–605.
  24. Sousa-Uva M, Neumann FJ, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019; 40(2): 87–165.
  25. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(2): 119–177.
  26. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2020 [Epub ahead of print].
  27. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Dec 6. ; 58(24): e44–122.
  28. Briguori C, Sarais C, Pagnotta P, et al. Elective versus provisional intra-aortic balloon pumping in high-risk percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J. 2003; 145(4): 700–707.
  29. Mishra S, Chu WW, Torguson R, et al. Role of prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2006; 98(5): 608–612.
  30. Briguori C, Airoldi F, Chieffo A, et al. Elective versus provisional intraaortic balloon pumping in unprotected left main stenting. Am Heart J. 2006; 152(3): 565–572.
  31. Curtis JP, Rathore SS, Wang Y, et al. Use and effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumps among patients undergoing high risk percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012; 5(1): 21–30.
  32. Perera D, Stables R, Clayton T, et al. BCIS-1 Investigators, BCIS-1 Investigators. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010; 304(8): 867–874.
  33. Perera D, Stables R, Clayton T, et al. BCIS-1 Investigators. Long-term mortality data from the balloon pump-assisted coronary intervention study (BCIS-1): a randomized, controlled trial of elective balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2013; 127(2): 207–212.
  34. Burzotta F, Russo G, Previ L, et al. Impella: pumps overview and access site management. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2018; 66(5): 606–611.
  35. Tschöpe C, Van Linthout S, Klein O, et al. Mechanical Unloading by Fulminant Myocarditis: LV-IMPELLA, ECMELLA, BI-PELLA, and PROPELLA Concepts. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2019; 12(2): 116–123.
  36. Buono A, Ielasi A, De Blasio G, et al. "Shock-Pella": Combined management of an undilatable ostial left circumflex stenosis in a complex high-risk interventional procedure patient. Cardiol J. 2020; 27(4): 427–428.
  37. Sjauw KD, Konorza T, Erbel R, et al. Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device the Europella registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54(25): 2430–2434.
  38. Maini B, Naidu SS, Mulukutla S, et al. Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 80(5): 717–725.
  39. Massetti M, Gaudino M, Crea F. How to transform peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the simplest mid-term paracorporeal ventricular assist device. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 166(3): 551–553.
  40. Meani P, Gelsomino S, Natour E, et al. Modalities and effects of left ventricle unloading on extracorporeal life support: a review of the current literature. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017; 19 Suppl 2: 84–91.
  41. Pappalardo F, Schulte C, Pieri M, et al. Concomitant implantation of Impella on top of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may improve survival of patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017; 19(3): 404–412.
  42. Bignon M, Roule V, Dahdouh Z, et al. Percutaneous balloon atrioseptostomy for left heart discharge in extracorporeal life support patients with persistent pulmonary edema. J Interv Cardiol. 2012; 25(1): 62–67.
  43. Danial P, Hajage D, Nguyen LS, et al. Percutaneous versus surgical femoro-femoral veno-arterial ECMO: a propensity score matched study. Intensive Care Med. 2018; 44(12): 2153–2161.
  44. Shammas N, Roberts S, Early G. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for unprotected left main stenting in a patient with totally occluded right coronary artery and severe left ventricular. J Invasive Cardiol. 2002; 14: 756–759.
  45. Vainer J, van Ommen V, Maessen J, et al. Elective high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions supported by extracorporeal life support. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99(6): 771–773.
  46. Shaukat A, Hryniewicz-Czeneszew K, Sun B, et al. Outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for complex high-risk elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a single-center experience and review of the literature. J Invasive Cardiol. 2018; 30(12): 456–460.
  47. Ponikowski P, Voors A, Anker S, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(27): 2129–2200.
  48. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial investigators, IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(14): 1287–1296.
  49. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(9): 625–634.
  50. Zeitouni M, Akin I, Desch S, et al. CULPRIT-SHOCK Investigators. PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(25): 2419–2432.
  51. Chioncel O, Parissis J, Mebazaa A, et al. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock - a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020; 22(8): 1315–1341.
  52. Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94(1): 29–37.
  53. O'Gara P, Kushner F, Ascheim D, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(4): e78–e140.
  54. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(16): e147–239.
  55. Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, et al. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J. 2019; 40(32): 2671–2683.
  56. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Bates ER, et al. Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36(3 Suppl A): 1123–1129.
  57. Sleeper LA, Reynolds HR, White HD, et al. A severity scoring system for risk assessment of patients with cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial and Registry. Am Heart J. 2010; 160(3): 443–450.
  58. Harjola VP, Lassus J, Sionis A, et al. CardShock Study Investigators, GREAT network. Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015; 17(5): 501–509.
  59. Hollenbeck RD, McPherson JA, Mooney MR, et al. Early cardiac catheterization is associated with improved survival in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest without STEMI. Resuscitation. 2014; 85(1): 88–95.
  60. Callaway CW, Donnino MW, Fink EL, et al. Part 8: post-cardiac arrest care: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2015; 132(18 Suppl 2): S465–S482.
  61. Lemkes J, Janssens G, Hoeven Nv, et al. Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation. N Engl J Med. 2019; 380(15): 1397–1407.
  62. Janssens GN, van der Hoeven NW, Lemkes JS, et al. 1-Year Outcomes of Delayed Versus Immediate Intervention in Patients With Transient ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12(22): 2272–2282.
  63. Tyler J, Henry J, Garberich R, et al. The impact of cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock on outcomes in st-elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73(9): 167.
  64. Cave DM, Gazmuri RJ, Otto CW, et al. Part 7: CPR techniques and devices: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010; 122(18 Suppl 3): S720–S728.
  65. Panchal AR, Berg KM, Hirsch KG, et al. 2019 American Heart Association Focused Update on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support: Use of Advanced Airways, Vasopressors, and Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During Cardiac Arrest: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2019; 140(24): e881–e894.
  66. Rajan S, Wissenberg M, Folke F, et al. Association of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival according to ambulance response times after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circulation. 2016; 134(25): 2095–2104.
  67. Kim SuJ, Jung JS, Park JH, et al. An optimal transition time to extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for predicting good neurological outcome in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a propensity-matched study. Crit Care. 2014; 18(5): 535.
  68. Chen YS, Chao A, Yu HY, et al. Analysis and results of prolonged resuscitation in cardiac arrest patients rescued by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41(2): 197–203.
  69. Chen YS, Lin JW, Yu HY, et al. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation with assisted extracorporeal life-support versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with in-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study and propensity analysis. Lancet. 2008; 372(9638): 554–561.
  70. Maekawa K, Tanno K, Hase M, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin: a propensity-matched study and predictor analysis. Crit Care Med. 2013; 41(5): 1186–1196.
  71. Spangenberg T, Meincke F, Brooks S, et al. "Shock and Go?" extracorporeal cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in the golden-hour of ROSC. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 88(5): 691–696.
  72. Vase H, Christensen S, Christiansen A, et al. The Impella CP device for acute mechanical circulatory support in refractory cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2017; 112: 70–74.
  73. Ellert J, Jensen MJ, Jensen LO, et al. Percutaneous biventricular cardiac assist device in cardiogenic shock and refractory cardiac arrest. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(18): e2114–e2115.
  74. Schmidt M, Burrell A, Roberts L, et al. Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(33): 2246–2256.
  75. Muller G, Flecher E, Lebreton G, et al. The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42(3): 370–378.
  76. Peigh G, Cavarocchi N, Keith SW, et al. Simple new risk score model for adult cardiac extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: simple cardiac ECMO score. J Surg Res. 2015; 198(2): 273–279.
  77. Glober NK, Tainter CR, Abramson TM, et al. A simple decision rule predicts futile resuscitation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2019; 142: 8–13.
  78. Guglin M, Zucker MJ, Bazan VM, et al. Venoarterial ECMO for Adults: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73(6): 698–716.
  79. Keebler ME, Haddad EV, Choi CW, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock. JACC Heart Fail. 2018; 6(6): 503–516.
  80. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(14): 1287–1296.
  81. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Thelemann N, et al. IABPSHOCK II Trial (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) Investigators. Intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: long-term 6-year outcome of the randomized IABPSHOCK II trial. Circulation. 2019; 139(3): 395–403.
  82. Fotopoulos GD, Mason MJ, Walker S, et al. Stabilisation of medically refractory ventricular arrhythmia by intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Heart. 1999; 82(1): 96–100.
  83. Goyal D, Nadar SK, Koganti S, et al. Successful use of intraaortic counter pulsation therapy for intractable ventricular arrhythmia in patient with severe left ventricular dysfunction and normal coronary arteries. Cardiol J. 2010; 17: 401–403.
  84. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52(19): 1584–1588.
  85. Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(3): 278–287.
  86. Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL, et al. Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2017; 119(6): 845–851.
  87. Basir MB, Schreiber T, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: The Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 91(3): 454–461.
  88. Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(47): 3523–3531.
  89. Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a matched-pair IABPSHOCK II trial 30-day mortality analysis. Circulation. 2019; 139(10): 1249–1258.
  90. Basir MB, Kapur NK, Patel K, et al. National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators. Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 93(7): 1173–1183.
  91. Chiu CY, Hättasch R, Praeger D, et al. Percutaneous biventricular Impella support in therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock. Heart Lung. 2018; 47(3): 250–252.
  92. Dalal PK, Mertens A, Shah D, et al. Hemodynamic support using percutaneous transfemoral Impella 5.0 and Impella RP for refractory cardiogenic shock. Case Rep Cardiol. 2019; 2019: 4591250.
  93. Sheu JJ, Tsai TH, Lee FY, et al. Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med. 2010; 38(9): 1810–1817.
  94. Chung SY, Tong MS, Sheu JJ, et al. Short-term and long-term prognostic outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock undergoing early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 223: 412–417.
  95. Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, et al. Clinical outcomes in fulminant myocarditis requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a weighted meta-analysis of 170 patients. J Card Fail. 2014; 20(6): 400–406.
  96. Asaumi Y, Yasuda S, Morii I, et al. Favourable clinical outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock due to fulminant myocarditis supported by percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26(20): 2185–2192.
  97. Matsumoto M, Asaumi Y, Nakamura Y, et al. Clinical determinants of successful weaning from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with fulminant myocarditis. ESC Heart Fail. 2018; 5(4): 675–684.
  98. Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42(12): 1922–1934.
  99. Russo JJ, Aleksova N, Pitcher I, et al. Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73(6): 654–662.
  100. Aso S, Matsui H, Fushimi K, et al. The effect of intraaortic balloon pumping under venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality of cardiogenic patients: an analysis using a nationwide inpatient database. Crit Care Med. 2016; 44(11): 1974–1979.
  101. Kuchibhotla S, Esposito ML, Breton C, et al. Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6(10).
  102. Kapur N, Breton C, O'Kelly R, et al. TCT-126 Simultaneous, not Staged, Deployment of Biventricular Micro-Axial Flow Impella Catheters (BiPella) is Associated with Improved Survival for Cardiogenic Shock Involving Biventricular Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(18): B51.
  103. Burzotta F, Dudek D. Looking For Vascular Access Standardization In Percutaneous Cardiovascular Procedures. EuroIntervention. 2020: in press.
  104. Freund A, Jobs A, Lurz P, et al. Frequency and impact of bleeding on outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 13(10): 1182–1193.
  105. Junquera L, Urena M, Latib A, et al. Comparison of transfemoral versus transradial secondary access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 13(3): e008609.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl