ABSTRACT
Mrs. Duong had coronary artery disease, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and mildly altered mental status when her case was presented before an advanced heart therapy medical review board. She was accepted for left ventricular assist device placement pending additional insight into her cognitive state. Before the LVAD could be implanted, however, Mrs. Duong went into cardiogenic shock, and her heart failure team placed an intra-aortic balloon pump in her subclavian artery. Within two weeks, Mrs. Duong became IABP dependent and deconditioned. The attending deemed her as lacking capacity to make complex medical decisions, and the medical review board officially declined her for LVAD placement. The heart failure and CICU teams feel that Mrs. Duong is not being helped by the care they are giving her. They recommend terminal weaning of the IABP and initiation of comfort care. Her family disagrees, pointing to activities like continued eating and interacting with family. At an impasse after yet another family meeting, the attending for the heart failure team asks the clinical ethics consultant, "Do we have to replace the balloon pump when it fails?"
Subject(s)
Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/ethics , Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/methods , Shock, Cardiogenic/surgery , Aged , Cardiomyopathies/complications , Cognitive Dysfunction/complications , Coronary Artery Disease/complications , Female , Humans , Shock, Cardiogenic/complications , Subclavian Artery/surgeryABSTRACT
Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation was for a long time considered to be an indispensable standard for support of drug therapy for all forms of acute left-sided cardiac failure and especially in cardiogenic shock due to infarction. The advantages of the system seemed to be obvious; however, many of the postulated effects on the hemodynamics, microcirculation and coronary perfusion could not be confirmed later in prospective studies. It was found that IABP had no influence on microcirculation disorders in cardiogenic shock due to infarction. In a meta-analysis on the application for acute myocardial infarction without shock, no effect was found on mortality. The benefit as adjunct therapy for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in cardiogenic shock due to infarction places a question mark over both IABP-SHOCK studies; however, in constellations without PCI the additional benefit of IABP cannot be excluded which is why the procedure could be an option in this situation.
