Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Left Ventricular Support Devices During Acute Coronary Syndrome and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

  • Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes (R Gulati, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an effort to improve outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) have been investigated in (1) high-risk PCI, (2) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) and (3) in AMI without CS. PCI has become an increasing complex due to an ageing population with complex disease and the frequent presence of impaired LV function. Patients undergoing high-risk PCI in these circumstances are prone to acute cardiovascular collapse. Additionally, mortality in AMI complicated by CS remains high. Lastly, LV support during AMI may reduce infarct size and therefore preserve LV function. At present, four commercially available devices exist: intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP), Impella, TandemHeart and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). These devices are employed in an effort to increase cardiac output, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and coronary perfusion and to reduce pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). The mechanism of action differs with each device, and there are advantages and disadvantages. In this update, we discuss recent data describing the use of PVADs to support patients with AMI with or without cardiogenic shock and during high-risk PCI. We focus on the unique features of each device, highlighting strengths, weaknesses and frequently encountered complications, which may be important when tailoring the most appropriate PVAD therapy to an individual patient’s need.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Kohsaka S, Menon V, Lowe AM, Lange AM, Dzavik V, Sleeper LA, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1643–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Werdan K. Do not get in RAGE in cardiogenic shock: it is detrimental! Crit Care Med. 2012;40:1669–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Awad HH, Anderson Jr FA, Gore JM, Goodman SG, Goldberg RJ. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes: insights from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Am Heart J. 2012;163:963–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hochman JS, Apolito R. The calm after the storm: long-term survival after cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1759–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kantrowitz A, Tjonneland S, Freed PS, Phillips SJ, Butner AN, Sherman Jr JL. Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 1968;203:113–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ohman EM, George BS, White CJ, Kern MJ, Gurbel PA, Freedman RJ, et al. Use of aortic counterpulsation to improve sustained coronary artery patency during acute myocardial infarction. Results of a randomized trial. The Randomized IABP Study Group. Circulation. 1994;90(2):792–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ohman EM, Califf RM, George BS, Quigley PJ, Kereiakes DJ, Harrelson-Woodlief L, et al. The use of intraaortic balloon pumping as an adjunct to reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J. 1991;121:895–901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sjauw KD, Engstrom AE, Vis MM, van der Schaaf RJ, Baan Jr J, Koch KT, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? Eur Heart J. 2009;30:459–68. This paper described two meta-analyses: First (STEMI without CS), IABP failed to provide a survival advantage but was associated with a greater incidence of stroke and bleeding (increases of 2 % and 6 % respectively). Second (STEMI with CS), IABP appeared to reduce mortality (by 18 %) among patients receiving lytic therapy but appeared detrimental among those treated with primary angioplasty (6 % increase in mortality).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel MR, Smalling RW, Thiele H, Barnhart HX, Zhou Y, Chandra P, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and infarct size in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction without shock: the CRISP AMI randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306:1329–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, Bates ER, Green LA, Hand M, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110:e82–e292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Unverzagt S, Machemer MT, Solms A, Thiele H, Burkhoff D, Seyfarth M, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7, CD007398.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bahekar A, Singh M, Singh S, Bhuriya R, Ahmad K, Khosla S, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes using intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2012;17:44–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, Romeo A, Muscoli S, Valente S, et al. The outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the type of revascularization: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2013;165:679–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1287–96. Large, prospective randomized trial comparing IABP (301) vs no IABP (299) among patients with AMI complicated by CS. IABP failed to improve 30-day or 1-year (next reference) survival.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomized, open-label trial. Lancet. 2013;382:1638–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey Jr DE, Chung MK, de Lemos JA, et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of st-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:485–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D, Badano LP, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, Borger MA, et al. ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2569–619.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Briguori C, Sarais C, Pagnotta P, Airoldi F, Liistro F, Sgura F, et al. Elective versus provisional intra-aortic balloon pumping in high-risk percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am Heart J. 2003;145:700–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mishra S, Chu WW, Torguson R, Wolfram R, Deible R, Suddath WO, et al. Role of prophylactic intraaortic balloon pump in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:608–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M, Booth J, Pitt M, Blackman D, et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;304:867–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, Romeo A, Gensini GF, Chiarotti F, et al. Lack of intra-aortic balloon pump effectiveness in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions without cardiogenic shock: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:1783–93. Large meta-analysis exploring the effect of prophylactic (elective) IABP ahead of high-risk PCI. Use of IABP did not translate to improved rates of in-hospital death or MACCE.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perera D, Stables R, Clayton T, De Silva K, Lumley M, Clack L, et al. 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;127:207–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Valgimigli M, Steendijk P, Sianos G, Onderwater E, Serruys PW. Left ventricular unloading and concomitant total cardiac output increase by the use of percutaneous Impella Recover LP 2.5 assist device during high-risk coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65:263–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JP, de Winter RJ, Koch KT, van der Schaaf RJ, et al. Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;70:532–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sjauw KD, Remmelink M, Baan Jr J, Lam K, Engstrom AE, van der Schaaf RJ, et al. Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:1044–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ouweneel DM, Henriques JP. Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: current indications and recommendations. Heart. 2012;98:1246–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meyns B, Stolinski J, Leunens V, Verbeken E, Flameng W. Left ventricular support by catheter-mounted axial flow pump reduces infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:1087–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Engstrom AE, Sjauw KD, Baan J, Remmelink M, Claessen BE, Kikkert WJ, et al. Long-term safety and sustained left ventricular recovery: long-term results of percutaneous left ventricular support with Impella LP2.5 in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention. 2011;7:860–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lauten A, Engstrom A, Jung C, Empen K, Erne P, Cook S, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular support with the Impella 2.5 assist device in acute cardiogenic shock—results of the Impella EUROSHOCK-Registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;61:23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Engstrom AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, Sjauw KD, Vis MM, Baan J, et al. The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med. 2011;9:2072–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Effects of advanced mechanical circulatory support in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The Danish Cardiogenic Shock Trial. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01633502. An ongoing large, randomized, multi-centre study that will try to address the question of whether a more powerful device (Impella 3.8L) may offer survival advantage among patients with STEMI and CS when compared to conventional support. An estimated 360 patients are to be recruited with a study completion date of April 2018.

  32. O’Neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DHW, Rihal C, Naidu SS, Civitello AB, et al. The current use of impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2014;27:1–11. This data from the USpella registry demonstrated that early (pre-PCI) initiation of Impella, among patients with AMI and CS, was associated with increased rates of survival and more complete revascularization.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, Henriques JPS, Dixon S, Massaro 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;126:1717–27. The largest randomized trial of Impella (2.5 L) versus IABP ahead of high-risk PCI. Although the primary endpoint (30-day major adverse events, MAE) was similar in both arms, patients treated with Impella were higher risk than those who received IABP, had more frequent and aggressive use of rotablation, demonstrated a trend towards reduced further revascularization and described marked improvements in symptoms and LVEF compared to those supported with IABP. Per-protocol analysis demonstrated Impella treated patients to have a lower rate of MAE by 90 days.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dangas GD, Kini AS, Sharma SK, Henriques JPS, Claessen BE, Dixon SR, et al. Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial). Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:222–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Thiele H, Lauer B, Hambrecht R, Boudriot E, Cohen HA, Schuler G. Reversal of cardiogenic shock by percutaneous left atrial-to-femoral arterial bypass assistance. Circulation. 2001;104:2917–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, Diederich KW, Hambrecht R, Niebauer J, et al. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1276–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O’Neill WW, TandemHeart Investigators Group. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device vs. conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 2006;152:469.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, Idelchik GM, Loyalka P. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:688–96. In this cohort study 117 patients received TandemHeart support for CS that was refractory to conventional therapy (including IABP in 96 patients). Patients were extremely unwell with 47.9 % undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation during TandemHeart implantation. 30-day survival was an impressive 59.8 %.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, 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;341:625–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vranckx P, Meliga E, De Jaegere PP, Van den Ent M, Regar ES, Serruys PW. The TandemHeart, percutaneous transseptal left ventricular assist device: a safeguard in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions. The six-year Rotterdam experience. EuroIntervention. 2008;4:331–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vranckx P, Foley DP, de Feijter PJ, Vos J, Smits P, Serruys PW. Clinical introduction of the TandemHeart, a percutaneous left ventricular assist device, for circulatory support during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;5:35–9.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Aragon J, Lee MS, Kar S, Makkar RR. Percutaneous left ventricular assist device: “TandemHeart” for high-risk coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65:346–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Vranckx P, Schultz CJ, Valgimigli M, Eindhoven JA, Kappetein AP, Regar ES, et al. Assisted circulation using the TandemHeart during very high-risk PCI of the unprotected left main coronary artery in patients declined for CABG. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;74:302–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Li YW, Rosenblum WD, Gass AL, Weiss MB, Aronow WS. Combination use of a TandemHeart with an extracorporeal oxygenator in the treatment if five patients with refractory cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Ther. 2013;20:213–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chamogeorgakis T, Rafael A, Shafil AE, Nagpal D, Pokersnik JA, Gonzalez-Stawinski GV. Which is better: a miniaturized percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock? ASAIO J. 2013;59:607–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tsao NW, Shih CM, Yeh JS, Kao YT, Hsieh MH, Ou KL, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention may improve survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock. J Crit Care. 2012;27:530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kagawa E, Dote K, Kato M, Sasaki S, Nakano Y, Kajikawa M, et al. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiac arrest?: rapid-response extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and intra-arrest percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2012;126:1605–13. Interesting report of 86 patients treated with ‘rapid response ECMO’ following ischemic cardiac arrest, that remained resistant to conventional resuscitation. Return of spontaneous circulation was achieved in all patients, with 71 % undergoing intra-arrest PCI. 30-day survival was 29 %. This paper is hypothesis generating and requires further investigation, however rapidly initiated ECMO may be feasible and may provide powerful support during resuscitation and coronary intervention.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Arlt M, Philipp A, Voelkel S, Schopka S, Husser O, Hengstenberg C, et al. Early experiences with miniaturized extracorporeal life-support in the catheterization laboratory. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42:858–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Cheng A, Swartz MF, Massey HT. Impella to unload the left ventricle during peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2013;59:533–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Thiele H, Smalling RW, Schuler GC. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2057–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Basra SS, Loyalka P, Kar B. Current status of percutaneous ventricular assist devices for cardiogenic shock. Curr Op Cardiol 2011;26:548–54

  52. Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman JS. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2014;35:156–67

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Sagar Doshi and Jon Spiro have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK

    Jon Spiro & Sagar N. Doshi

Authors
  1. Jon Spiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sagar N. Doshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sagar N. Doshi.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spiro, J., Doshi, S.N. Use of Left Ventricular Support Devices During Acute Coronary Syndrome and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Curr Cardiol Rep 16, 544 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-014-0544-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-014-0544-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation