Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

Importance: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit. Objective: To examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020. Exposures: Therapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use. Results: Among the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P < .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use.

Cardiogenic shock: incidence, survival and mechanical circulatory support usage 2007-2017-insights from a national registry.

BACKGROUND: A central element in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) comprises mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems to maintain cardiac output (CO). This study aims to quantify incidence, outcome and influence of MCS in CS over the last decade. METHODS: All patients hospitalized with CS in a tertiary university hospital in Germany between 2007 and 2017 were identified utilizing the international coding system ICD-10 with code R57.0. Application of MCS was identified via German procedure classification codes (OPS). RESULTS: 383,983 cases of cardiogenic shock were reported from 2007 to 2017. Patients had a mean age of 71 years and 38.5% were female. The incidence of CS rose by 65.6% from 26,828 cases in 2007 (33.1 per 100,000 person-years, hospital survival 39.2%) to 44,425 cases in 2017 (53.7 per 100,000 person-years, survival 41.2%). In 2007, 16.0% of patients with CS received MCS (4.6 per 100,000 person-years, survival 46.6%), dropping to 13.9% in 2017 (6.6 per 100,000 person-years, survival 38.6%). Type of MCS changed over the years, with decreasing use of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), an increase in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) usage. Significant differences regarding in-hospital survival were observed between the devices (survival: overall: 40.2%; medical treatment = 39.5%; IABP = 49.5%; pVAD = 36.2%; VA-ECMO = 30.5%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of CS is increasing, but hospital survival remains low. MCS was used in a minority of patients, and the percentage of MCS usage in CS has decreased. The use rates of the competing devices change over time.

Serial Changes in Clinical Presentations and Outcomes of 5,740 Patients Requiring Repeated Hospital Admissions (Four or More Times) due to Worsened Heart Failure.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of death and hospitalization worldwide. In particular, hospital readmission due to worsened HF occurs frequently after the onset of HF. However, the association of repeated hospital admission with clinical manifestations and outcomes is unclear. The aim of this study was to clarify the serial changes in presentation and clinical course of patients requiring repeated hospital admission due to worsened HF. Among 466,921 patients who were admitted and discharged between January 2010 and March 2018, with the main discharge diagnosis of HF, we studied 5,740 patients who were hospitalized 4 times or more, using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We evaluated serial changes in continuous data using the Jonckheere trend test, and categorical data using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. The median age of the patients was 78 years, and 3,326 patients (58%) were male. Body mass index and Barthel Index decreased with increased numbers of admissions. Patients requiring respiratory support and hemodialysis increased, whereas patients undergoing intra-aortic balloon pumping decreased with increased numbers of admissions. The length of hospital stay was prolonged and the interval between hospitalizations was shortened with increased numbers of hospital admissions. The in-hospital mortality rate was 8.8% at the fourth admission. In conclusion, this is the first large-scale real-world study on the serial changes in characteristics and outcomes of HF patients requiring repeated hospitalization, suggesting that repeated hospitalization might adversely affect the general status of patients with HF and result in a vicious clinical cycle.

Balloon Pump Counterpulsation Part II: Perioperative Hemodynamic Support and New Directions.

Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation, introduced more than 50 years ago, remains the most commonly utilized mechanical circulatory support device for patients with cardiogenic shock and myocardial ischemia, despite lack of definitive proof regarding its outcome in these patients. Part I of this review focused on the history of counterpulsation, physiologic principles, technical considerations, and evidence for its use in cardiogenic shock; Part II will discuss periprocedural uses for IABP counterpulsation and review advances in technology, including the emergence of alternative mechanical circulatory support devices that have influenced IABP utilization.

Future Perspectives of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping for Cardiogenic Shock.

An intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is a device of internal counterpulsation. Inflation of the balloon in diastole results in a potential increase in coronary blood flow and an improvement in systemic perfusion, and deflation at the end of diastole reduces left ventricular afterload, although the hemodynamic effects are relatively small. With its favorable safety profile due to fewer adverse events, IABP has been used for more than 5 decades as the most common mechanical circulatory support device for cardiogenic shock. Recently, however, other short-term devices have become available, and the position of IABP for cardiogenic shock is rapidly changing. Meanwhile, novel improvements in knowledge and technology are pushing the boundaries of this device. In this review, we summarize the basic physiology and current evidence of this device and then discuss the outlook and implications of IABP in the future.

Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock.

Objectives: To describe the contemporary trends in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). To evaluate survival benefit with early application of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella CP. Methods: A cohort study of all consecutive patients with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) <24 hours of symptom onset (early PCI) in southeastern Denmark from 2010 to 2017. A matched case-control study comparing 30-day mortality between patients receiving early-IABP or early-Impella CP and their respective control group. Controls were matched on age, left ventricular ejection fraction, arterial lactate, estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac arrest before PCI. Early-IABP/Impella CP was defined as applied before PCI if shock developed pre-PCI, or immediately after PCI if shock developed during PCI. Results: 903 patients with AMICS undergoing early PCI were identified. Use of MCS decreased from 50% in 2010 to 25% in 2017, p for trend of <0.001. The IABP was abandoned in 2012 and replaced mostly by Impella CP. Patients receiving MCS in 2013-2017 had more compromised haemodynamics compared with patients receiving MCS in 2010-2012. 40 patients received early IABP, and 40 patients received early Impella CP. Only the group receiving early Impella CP was associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with their matched control group (30-day mortality 40% vs 77.5%, plog-rank of<0.001). Conclusion: Use of MCS decreased by 50% from 2010 to 2017. Patients receiving MCS had more compromised haemodynamics in recent years. Early application of Impella CP was associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with a matched control group.

The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support.

BACKGROUND: Impella was approved for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in 2008, but large-scale, real-world data on its use are lacking. Our objective was to describe trends and variations in Impella use, clinical outcomes, and costs across US hospitals in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with MCS (Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump). METHODS: From the Premier Healthcare Database, we analyzed 48 306 patients undergoing PCI with MCS at 432 hospitals between January 2004 and December 2016. Association analyses were performed at 3 levels: time period, hospital, and patient. Hierarchical models with propensity adjustment were used for association analyses. We examined trends and variations in the proportion of Impella use, and associated clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, stroke, length of stay, and hospital costs). RESULTS: Among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, 4782 (9.9%) received Impella; its use increased over time, reaching 31.9% of MCS in 2016. There was wide variation in Impella use across hospitals (>5-fold variation). Specifically, among patients receiving Impella, there was a wide variation in outcomes of bleeding (>2.5-fold variation), and death, acute kidney injury, and stroke (all ≈1.5-fold variation). Adverse outcomes and costs were higher in the Impella era (years 2008-2016) versus the pre-Impella era (years 2004-2007). Hospitals with higher Impella use had higher rates of adverse outcomes and costs. After adjustment for the propensity score, and accounting for clustering of patients by hospitals, Impella use was associated with death: odds ratio, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.13-1.36); bleeding: odds ratio, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.21); and stroke: odds ratio, 1.34 (95% CI, 1.18-1.53), although a similar, nonsignificant result was observed for acute kidney injury: odds ratio, 1.08 (95% CI, 1.00-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: Impella use is rapidly increasing among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, with marked variability in its use and associated outcomes. Although unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out, when analyzed by time periods, or at the hospital level or the patient level, Impella use was associated with higher rates of adverse events and costs. More data are needed to define the appropriate role of MCS in patients undergoing PCI.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Use in Acute Myocardial Infarction in the United States, 2000 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI); however, there are limited large-scale national data. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2000 to 2014, a retrospective cohort of AMI utilizing ECMO was identified. Use of percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) was also identified in this population. Outcomes of interest included temporal trends in utilization of ECMO alone and with concomitant procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous LVAD), in-hospital mortality, and resource utilization. RESULTS: In ≈9 million AMI admissions, ECMO was used in 2962 (<0.01%) and implanted a median of 1 day after admission. ECMO was used in 0.5% and 0.3% AMI admissions complicated by cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, respectively. ECMO was used more commonly in admissions that were younger, nonwhite, and with less comorbidity. ECMO use was 11× higher in 2014 as compared with 2000 (odds ratio, 11.37 [95% CI, 7.20-17.97]). Same-day percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 23.1%; intra-aortic balloon pump/percutaneous LVAD was used in 57.9%, of which 30.3% were placed concomitantly. In-hospital mortality with ECMO was 59.2% overall but decreased from 100% (2000) to 45.1% (2014). Durable LVAD and cardiac transplantation were performed in 11.7% as an exit strategy. Of the hospital survivors, 40.8% were discharged to skilled nursing facilities. Older age, male sex, nonwhite race, and lower socioeconomic status were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality with ECMO use. CONCLUSIONS: In AMI admissions, a steady increase was noted in the utilization of ECMO alone and with concomitant procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous LVAD). In-hospital mortality remained high in AMI admissions treated with ECMO.

Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. RESULTS: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%-50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%-100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

Clinical scenarios for use of transvalvular microaxial pumps in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock - A European experienced users working group opinion.

For patients with myocardial infarct-related cardiogenic shock (CS), urgent percutaneous coronary intervention is the recommended treatment strategy to limit cardiac and systemic ischemia. However, a specific therapeutic intervention is often missing in non-ischemic CS cases. Though drug treatment with inotropes and/or vasopressors may be required to stabilize the patient initially, their ongoing use is associated with excess mortality. Coronary intervention in unstable patients often leads to further hemodynamic compromise either during or shortly after revascularization. Support devices like the intra-aortic balloon pump failed to improve clinical outcomes in infarct-related CS. Currently, more powerful and active hemodynamic support devices unloading the left ventricle such as transvalvular microaxial pumps are available and are being increasingly used. However, as for other devices large randomized trials are not yet available, and device use is based on registry data and expert consensus. In this article, a multidisciplinary group of experienced users of transvalvular microaxial pumps outlines the pathophysiological background on hemodynamic changes in CS, the available mechanical support devices, and current guideline recommendations. Furthermore, different hemodynamic situations in several case-based scenarios are used to illustrate candidate settings and to provide the theoretic and scientific rationale for left-ventricular unloading in these scenarios. Finally, organization of shock networks, monitoring, weaning, and typical complications and their prevention are discussed.

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock: State of the Art.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2019. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2019 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901 .

Temporal trends of survival and utilization of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest secondary to ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) is the initial rhythm in a third of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device use remains poorly understood in this population. METHODS: We conducted an observational analysis of temporal trends in the utilization of MCS in VT/VF IHCA between January 2008 and December 2014 utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Using multivariable analysis, we assessed factors associated with MCS use and survival to discharge. RESULTS: Among 151,628 hospitalizations with VT/VF IHCA, 14,981 (9.9%) received MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was the most commonly used MCS (9.1%). From 2008 to 2014, there was significant increase in the utilization of MCS (8.7-11%; ptrend < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, there was 12-fold increase and three-fold increase in the utilization of PVAD and ECMO respectively; however, there was no significant change in the use of IABP. Over the seven-year sample period, there was significant increase in the overall survival to hospital discharge (35.4-43.5%; ptrend < 0.0001). Survival to hospital discharge increased in both MCS and non-MCS groups. CONCLUSION: There was significant increase in utilization of MCS after VT/VF IHCA during the study period. IABP was the most commonly utilized MCS. The survival to hospital discharge increased in the overall study population including both MCS and non-MCS groups. Future studies are needed to identify patient population most likely to benefit from the use of MCS after VT/VF IHCA.

Hospital Variation in the Utilization of Short-Term Nondurable Mechanical Circulatory Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Limited knowledge exists on inter-hospital variation in the utilization of short-term, nondurable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations for MI with CS in 2014 in a nationally representative all-payer database were included. The proportion of hospitalizations for MI with CS using MCS (MCS ratio) and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Hospital characteristics and outcomes were compared across quartiles of MCS usage. Of 1813 hospitals evaluated, 1440 (79.4%) performed ≥10 percutaneous coronary interventions annually. Of these, 1064 (73.9%) had at least one code for MCS. Forty-one percent of hospitals did not use MCS. The median (interquartile range) proportion of MCS use among admissions for MI with CS was 33.3% (0.0%-50.0%). High MCS utilizing hospitals were larger ( P<0.001). Eighty-five percent (2808/3301) of MCS use was intra-aortic balloon pump. There was significant variation in receipt of MCS at different hospitals (median odds ratio of receiving MCS at 2 random hospitals: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.45-1.70). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was not different across quartiles of MCS use (Q4 versus Q1; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; P=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in hospital use of MCS for MI with CS, unexplained by patient characteristics. The predominant form of MCS use is intra-aortic balloon pump. Risk-adjusted mortality rates were not different between higher and lower MCS-utilizing hospitals.

Intra-aortic balloon pump: current evidence & future perspectives.

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used to support severely compromised ventricles in critically ill patients. Its relatively affordability and ease of insertion has cemented its position as the first line of treatment for hemodynamic support in cardiogenic shock. Accordingly, the current ACC/AHA recommendations maintain a Class 2A for the use of IABP in shock. However, a review of the current literature suggests that the evidence supporting the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines are equivocal. Alternative uses for IABP such as perioperative support during high-risk cardiac surgery, treatment of left ventricular distention on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and as bridge to transplant have been proposed. The effectiveness of the IABP in these clinical situations remains largely unproven, due to the paucity of available data.

National trends, predictors of use, and in-hospital outcomes in mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Despite rising rates of cardiogenic shock (CS), data on trends and in-hospital outcomes of short-term non-durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) are limited. Thus, we aimed to identify recent national trends in MCS utilisation in the USA, patient-level predictors of MCS use, and in-hospital outcomes in CS inclusive of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalisations of US adults with a discharge diagnosis of CS, from January 2004 to December 2014, in the National Inpatient Sample were included. Rates of MCS were stratified by device type and clinical presentation. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, hospitalisation costs, and number of procedures. A total of 183,516 hospitalisations with CS (47,636 [25.9%] involving MCS) were included. MCS recipients were younger, less frequently female, received more procedures, had higher costs, and more frequently presented with MI (MCS vs. non-MCS: 71.6% vs. 42.9%; p<0.0001). Growth in CS hospitalisations (214.4%) outpaced annual MCS use (160.0%), with relative declines in intra-aortic balloon pump use starting in 2008. Right heart catheterisation rates for both groups remained low (MCS vs. non-MCS: 5.9% vs. 3.3%; p<0.0001). In-hospital mortality declined but remained high in both groups (MCS vs. non-MCS [2014]: 32.7% vs. 41.5%; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality for CS has declined but remains high. Rates of CS have outpaced MCS utilisation which remains uncommon in non-MI hospitalisations with shock. MCS is associated with utilisation of other procedures during hospitalisation.

Management and predictors of outcome in unselected patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Bremen STEMI Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and consecutive cardiogenic shock (CS) represent a challenge in clinical practice. Only few 'real-world' data on therapeutic management and outcome exist. METHODS: The present analysis focuses on changes of clinical management of STEMI-patients with CS and analyzes predictors of outcome using the Bremen-STEMI registry. RESULTS: Out of 7865 patients with STEMI, 981 patients (13%) presented with CS. Most CS patients (88%) underwent an early percutaneous intervention (PCI). Intraaortic balloon pumps (IABP) were less implanted since 2013 (p < 0.001), the rate of drug-eluting stents and periprocedural prasugrel or ticagrelor therapy increased over the years. Overall in-hospital mortality of patients with CS was 37%, 1 year mortality was 50%. A significantly reduced 1-year mortality (2006-2009: 55%, 2010-2013: 50%; 2014-2015: 43%, p = 0.027) was observed. In a multivariate analysis significant predictors of an increased 1-year mortality were acute renal failure (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.9-7.0), atrial fibrillation (OR 2.8; 95% CI 1.3-6.0), three-vessel disease (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3-4.7), age ≥ 75 years (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.4) and anemia (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.3). A successful performed PCI (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-0.9) was associated with a significantly reduced 1-year mortality. CONCLUSION: management of patients with CS changed with a steep decrease of IABP implantations. Mortality of patients with CS decreased over the last 10 years. Especially, performance of successful PCI was associated with a reduction of mortality, indicating the crucial role of early revascularization to improve prognosis in this high-risk cohort of STEMI-patients.

Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recent trends on outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) suggest improvements in early survival. However, with the ever-changing landscape in management of CS, we sought to identify age-based trends in these outcomes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use among patients with both AMI and non-AMI associated shock. METHODS: We queried the 2005-2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases to identify patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. Trends in the incidence of hospital-mortality, and use of MCS such as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella/TandemHeart (IMP), and extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were analyzed within the overall population and among different age-categories (50 and under, 51-65, 66-80 and 81-99 years). We also made comparisons between patient groups admitted with CS complicating AMI and those with non-AMI associated CS. RESULTS: We studied 144,254 cases of CS, of which 55.4% cases were associated with an AMI. Between 2005 and 2014, an overall decline in IABP use (29.8-17.7%; ptrend < 0.01), and an uptrend in IMP use (0.1-2.6%; ptrend < 0.01), ECMO use (0.3-1.8%; ptrend < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality (44.1-52.5% AMI related, 49.6-53.5% non-AMI related; ptrend < 0.01) was seen. Patients aged 81-99 years had the lowest rate of MCS use (14.8%), whereas those aged 51-65 years had highest rate of MCS use (32.3%). Multivariable analysis revealed that patients aged 51-65 years (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.40-1.52; p<0.001), 66-80 years (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 2.39-2.63; p<0.01) and 81-99 years (aOR 5.04, 95% CI 4.78-5.32; p<0.01) had significantly higher hospital mortality compared to patients aged ≤ 50 years. Patients admitted with CS complicating AMI were older and had more comorbidities, but lower hospital mortality (45.0 vs. 48.2%; p < 0.001) when compared to non-AMI related CS. We also noted that the proportion of patients admitted with CS complicating AMI significantly decreased from 2005 to 2014 (65.3-45.6%; ptrend < 0.01) whereas those admitted without an associated AMI increased. CONCLUSIONS: IABP use has declined whereas IMP and ECMO use has increased over time among CS admissions. Older age was associated with an incrementally higher independent risk for hospital mortality. Recent trends indicate an increase in both proportion of patients admitted with CS without associated AMI and in-hospital mortality across all CS admissions irrespective of AMI status.

Acute Hemodynamic Effects of Intra-aortic Balloon Counterpulsation Pumps in Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The utility of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation pumps (IABPs) in low cardiac output states is unknown and no studies have explored the impact of IABP therapy on ventricular workload in patients with advanced heart failure (HF). For these reasons, we explored the acute hemodynamic effects of IABP therapy in patients with advanced HF. METHODS: We prospectively studied 10 consecutive patients with stage D HF referred for IABP placement before left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery and compared with 5 control patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) who did not receive IABP therapy. Hemodynamics were recorded using LV conductance and pulmonary artery catheters. Cardiac index (CI)-responder and CI-nonresponder status was assigned a priori as being "equal to or above" or below the median of the IABP effect on CI, respectively, within 24 hours after IABP activation. RESULTS: Compared with controls, patients with advanced HF had lower LVEF, lower LV end-systolic pressure, lower LV stroke work, and higher LV end-diastolic pressures and volumes before IABP activation. IABP activation reduced LV stroke work primarily by reducing end-systolic pressure. IABP therapy increased CI by a median of 20% as well as increased diastolic pressure time index and the myocardial oxygen supply:demand ratio. Compared with CI-nonresponders, CI-responders had higher systemic vascular resistance, lower right heart filling pressures, and a trend toward lower left heart filling pressures with improved indices of right heart function. Compared with CI-nonresponders, the diastolic pressure time index was increased among CI-responders. CONCLUSIONS: IABP therapy may be effective at reducing LV stroke work, increasing CI, and favorably altering the myocardial oxygen supply:demand ratio in patients with advanced HF, especially among patients with low right heart filling pressures and high systemic vascular resistance.