Mechanical circulatory support in the treatment of cardiogenic shock – review

Czech version

Authors: M. Šimek ¹; M. Hutyra ²; O. Zuščich ¹; A. Klváček ¹
Authors‘ workplace: Kardiochirurgická klinika FN Olomouc ¹; I. interní klinika – kardiologická FN Olomouc ²
Published in: Kardiol Rev Int Med 2014, 16(2): 116-122
Category: Cardiology Review

Overview

The maintenance of adequate end‑organ perfusion is the cornerstone of cardiogenic shock management, which still carries a poor prognosis. Mechanical circulatory support to ensure organ perfusion is required once pharmacological therapy together with the effort to affect the cause of heart failure is less effective or fails. There are currently several circulatory support options, including intra‑ aortic balloon counterpulsation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneously or surgically implanted ventricular assist devices. The role of, and experience with, each of these support devices in the management of cardiogenic shock is broadly discussed in this review.

Keywords:
cardiogenic shock – mechanical circulatory support – review

Sources

1. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ et al. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2005; 294: 448– 454.

2. Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: Expanding the paradigm. Circulation 2003; 107: 2998– 3002.

3. Esper SA, Subramaniam K. Heart failure and mechanical circulatory support. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2012; 26: 91– 104. doi: 10.1016/ j.bpa.2012.03.003.

4. Subramaniam K, Boisen M, Shah PR et al. Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2012; 26: 131– 146. doi: 10.1016/ j.bpa.2012.05.001.

5. Kapelios CJ, Terrovitis JV, Siskas P et al. Counterpulsation: A concept with a remarkable past, an established present and a challenging future. Int J Cardiol 2014; 172: 318– 325. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijcard.2014.01.098.

6. Kopřiva K, Ošťádal P, Mates M et al. Intraaortální balonková kontrapulzace v klinické kardiologii. Interv Akut Kardiol 2013; 12: 130– 134.

7. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1287– 1296. doi: 10.1056/ NEJMoa1208410.

8. Manďák J. Intraaortální balonková kotrapulzace. Praha: Grada Publishing 2006.

9. Anderson RD, Ohman EM, Holmes DR Jr et al. Use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock: observations from the GUSTO‑ I Study. Global utilization of streptokinase and TPA for occluded coronary arteries. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30: 708– 715.

10. 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.

11. Ohman EM, Nanas J, Stomel RJ et al. Thrombolysis and counterpulsation to improve survival inmyocardial infarction complicated by hypotension and suspected cardiogenic shock or heart failure: results of the TACTICS Trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2005; 19: 33– 39.

12. Prondzinsky R, Lemm H, Swyter M et al. Intra‑ aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med 2010; 38: 152– 160. doi: 10.1097/ CCM.0b013e3181b78671.

13. Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM 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– 468. doi: 10.1093/ eurheartj/ ehn602.

14. Bahekar A, Singh M, Singh 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. doi: 10.1177/ 1074248410395019.

15. Steg PG, James SK, Atar D et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presentingwith ST‑segment elevation. Task Force on the managementof ST‑segment elevation acute myocardial infarctionof the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2569– 2619. doi: 10.1093/ eurheartj/ ehs215.

16. Neužil P, Kmoníček P, Reddy V et al. Perkutánně zaváděná mechanická podpora levé srdeční komory (pVAD) u nemocných s kardiogenním šokem – technika implantace. Interv Akut Kardiol 2006; 3: 131– 134.

17. Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E 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– 1283.

18. Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C et al. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the tandem heart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 2006; 152: 469.e1– e8.

19. Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS et al. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57: 688– 696. doi: 10.1016/ j.jacc.2010.08.613.

20. Remmelink M, Sjauw KD, Henriques JPS et al. Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2007; 70: 532– 537.

21. 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: 1584– 1588. doi: 10.1016/ j.jacc.2008.05.065.

22. Lauten A1, Engström AE, Jung C 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; 6: 23– 30. doi: 10.1161/ CIRCHEARTFAILURE. 112.967224.

23. Lemaire A, Anderson MB, Lee LY et al. The Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97: 133– 138. doi: 10.1016/ j.athoracsur.2013.07.053.

24. Engström AE, Granfeldt H, Seybold‑ Epting W et al. Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 device for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a three‑ center experience. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2013; 61: 539– 546.

25. Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra‑ aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta‑analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 2102– 2108. doi: 10.1093/ eurheartj/ ehp292.

26. Niclauss L, Segesser LK. PulseCath iVAC 3LTM hemodynamic performance for simple assisted flow. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011; 12: 912– 913. doi: 10.1510/ icvts.2010.264051.

27. Amico A, Brigiani MS, Vallabini A et al. PulseCath, a new short‑term ventricular assist device: our experience in off‑ pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiovasc Med 2008; 9: 423– 426. doi: 10.2459/ JCM.0b013e3282eee851.

28. Arrigoni SC, Kuijpers M, Mecozzi G et al. PulseCath(R) as a right ventricular assist device. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011; 12: 891– 894. doi: 10.1510/ icvts.2010.257576.

29. Anastasiadis K, Chalvatzoulis O, Antonitsis P et al. Left ventricular decompression during peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support with the use of the novel iVAC pulsatile paracorporeal assist device. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 92: 2257– 2259. doi: 10.1016/ j.athoracsur.2011.05.063.

30. Bělohlávek J, Rohn V, Kunstýř J et al. Profil pacientů léčených extrakorporální membránovou oxygenací (ECMO). Interv Akut Kardiol 2010; 9: 121– 128.

31. Ošťádal P, Bělohlávek J. ECMO – Extrakorporální membránová oxygenace. Praha: Maxdorf 2013.

32. Di Bella I, Da Col U, Ramoni E et al. Peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a useful option to allow recovery in acute cardiogenic shock. J Cardiovasc Med 2011; 12: 681– 685. doi: 10.2459/ JCM.0b013e32833dad56.

33. Van Meurs K, Lally KP, Peek G et al. ECMO Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary support in critical care. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor, USA: ELSO 2005, 203– 215.

34. Aziz F, Brehm CE, El‑ Banyosy A et al. Arterial Complications in Patients Undergoing Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation via Femoral Cannulation. Ann Vasc Surg 2014; 28: 178– 183. doi: 10.1016/ j.avsg.2013.03.011.

35. Nichol G, Karmy‑ Jones R, Salerno C et al. Systematic review of percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass for cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock states. Resuscitation. 2006; 70: 381– 394.

36. Loforte A, Montalto A, Ranocchi F et al. Peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation system as salvage treatment ofpatients with refractory cardiogenic shock: preliminary outcome evaluation. Artif Organs 2012; 36: E53– E61. doi: 10.1111/ j.1525– 1594.2011.01423.x.

37. Liden H, Wiklund L, Haraldsson A et al. Temporary circulatory support with extra corporeal membrane oxygenation in adults with refractory cardiogenic shock. Scand Cardiovasc J 2009; 43: 226– 232. doi: 10.1080/ 14017430802596420.

38. Hoefer D, Ruttmann E, Poelzl G et al. Outcome evaluation of the bridge‑ to‑ bridge concept in patients with cardiogenicshock. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82: 28– 33.

39. Smedira NG, Moazami N, Golding CM et al. Clinical experience with 202 adults receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiac failure: survival at five years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122: 92– 102.

40. Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL et al. The fourth INTERMACS annual report: 4000 implants and counting. J Heart Lung Transplant 2012; 31: 117– 126. doi: 10.1016/ j.healun.2011.12.001.

41. Hashiba K, Okuda J, Maejima N et al. Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support in pulmonary embolism with cardiac arrest. Resuscitation 2012; 83: 183– 187. doi: 10.1016/ j.resuscitation.2011.10.019.

42. Lamarche Y, Cheung A, Ignaszewski A et al. Comparative outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with Impella microaxial pump or extracorporeal life support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142: 60– 65. doi: 10.1016/ j.jtcvs.2010.07.075.

43. Chamogeorgakis T, Rafael A, Shafii AE et al.Which is better: a miniaturized percutaneous ventricular assist device or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock? ASAIO J 2013; 59: 607– 611. doi: 10.1097/ MAT.0b013e3182a8baf7.

44. Netuka I, Malý J, Szárszoi O. Mechanické srdeční podpory v terapii terminálního srdečního selhání. Cor et Vasa 2008; 50: 207– 214.

45. Horváth V, Nemec P, Ondrášek J et al. Kratkodobá mechanická srdeční podpora centrifugalní pumpou Levitronix Centrimag. Cor et Vasa 2011; 53: 144– 147.

46. Minami K, el‑ Banayosy A, Posival H et al. Improvement of survival in patients with cardiogenic shock by using non‑pulsatile and pulsatile ventricular assist device. Int J Artif Organs 1992; 15: 715– 721.

47. Ziemba EA, John R. Mechanical circulatory support for bridge to decision: which device and when to decide. J Card Surg 2010; 25: 425– 433. doi: 10.1111/ j.1540-8191.2010.01038.x.

48. Entwistle JW 3rd, Bolno PB, Holmes E et al. Improved survival with ventricular assist device support in cardiogenic shock aftermyocardial infarction. Heart Surg Forum 2003; 6: 316– 319.

49. John R, Long JW, Massey HT et al. Outcomes of a multicenter trial of the Levitronix CentriMag ventricular assist system for short‑term circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 141: 932– 939. doi: 10.1016/ j.jtcvs.2010.03.046.

50. Loforte A, Montalto A, Ranocchi F et al. Levitronix CentriMag third‑ generation magnetically levitated continuous flow pump as bridge to solution. ASAIO J 2011; 57: 247– 253. doi: 10.1097/ MAT.0b013e31821f2116.

51. Sayer GT, Baker JN, Parks KA. Heart rescue: the role of mechanical circulatory support in the management of severe refractory cardiogenic shock. Curr Opin Crit Care 2012; 18: 409– 416. doi: 10.1097/ MCC.0b013e328357f1e6.