Background Despite controversial evidences, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is still the most widely used temporary mechanical support device in cardiogenic shock (CS), as a bridge to recovery or to more invasive mechanical supports/heart transplantation. Methods We analyzed retrospectively data of all patients receiving IABP for CS from 2009 to 2018 in a referral centre for advanced heart failure and heart transplantation; we included CS following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and other CS etiologies different from ACS. We excluded patients in which IABP was implanted as a support following cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery in patients with severe chronic heart failure, or in elective high risk or complicated Cath Lab procedures. We focused on in-hospital outcomes (including death, recovery, heart transplantation, LVAD) and IABP complications. Results 403 patients received IABP, 303 (75.2%) following ACS and 100 (24.8%) in non-ACS CS. Non-ACS patients were younger (59 ± 18.3 vs 73.1 ± 12.6 years, p < 0.001), had lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (25% [18–35] vs 38% [25–45], p < 0.001). In patients with non-ACS etiologies IABP was more frequently a bridge to heart transplantation [20% (n = 20) vs 0.3% (n = 1), P < 0.001] or LVAD [4% (n = 4) vs 0.6% (n = 2), P = 0.055], while ACS patients were more frequently discharged without transplantation/LVAD [65.7% (n = 199) vs 33% (n = 33), P < 0.001]. Non-ACS patients showed higher in-hospital mortality [46% (n = 46) vs 33.9% (n = 103), P = 0.042]. Post-transplant/LVAD outcome in non-ACS subgroup was favorable (21 out of 24 patients were discharged). Serious IABP-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (5.2%). Ischemic/hemorrhagic complications, infections and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with longer IABP stay. Conclusions Despite therapy including percutaneous circulatory support, mortality in CS is still high. In our experience, in the clinical setting of refractory CS an IABP support represents a relatively safe circulatory support, associated with a low rate of serious complications in complex clinical scenarios.
Anna Corsini, Luciano Potena, Francesco Barberini, Alberto Foa, Caterina Gargiulo, Mattia Malaguti, et al. (2022). Clinical profile and in-hospital outcome of patients supported by intra-aortic balloon pump in the clinical setting of cardiogenic shock. AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL PLUS, 17, 1-6 [10.1016/j.ahjo.2022.100145].
Clinical profile and in-hospital outcome of patients supported by intra-aortic balloon pump in the clinical setting of cardiogenic shock
Anna Corsini;Luciano Potena;Francesco Barberini;Alberto Foa;Caterina Gargiulo;Matteo Schinzari;Mattia Garofalo;Elena Nardi;Mario Sabatino;Nazzareno Galie;Samuele Nanni
2022
Abstract
Background Despite controversial evidences, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is still the most widely used temporary mechanical support device in cardiogenic shock (CS), as a bridge to recovery or to more invasive mechanical supports/heart transplantation. Methods We analyzed retrospectively data of all patients receiving IABP for CS from 2009 to 2018 in a referral centre for advanced heart failure and heart transplantation; we included CS following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and other CS etiologies different from ACS. We excluded patients in which IABP was implanted as a support following cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery in patients with severe chronic heart failure, or in elective high risk or complicated Cath Lab procedures. We focused on in-hospital outcomes (including death, recovery, heart transplantation, LVAD) and IABP complications. Results 403 patients received IABP, 303 (75.2%) following ACS and 100 (24.8%) in non-ACS CS. Non-ACS patients were younger (59 ± 18.3 vs 73.1 ± 12.6 years, p < 0.001), had lower median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (25% [18–35] vs 38% [25–45], p < 0.001). In patients with non-ACS etiologies IABP was more frequently a bridge to heart transplantation [20% (n = 20) vs 0.3% (n = 1), P < 0.001] or LVAD [4% (n = 4) vs 0.6% (n = 2), P = 0.055], while ACS patients were more frequently discharged without transplantation/LVAD [65.7% (n = 199) vs 33% (n = 33), P < 0.001]. Non-ACS patients showed higher in-hospital mortality [46% (n = 46) vs 33.9% (n = 103), P = 0.042]. Post-transplant/LVAD outcome in non-ACS subgroup was favorable (21 out of 24 patients were discharged). Serious IABP-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (5.2%). Ischemic/hemorrhagic complications, infections and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with longer IABP stay. Conclusions Despite therapy including percutaneous circulatory support, mortality in CS is still high. In our experience, in the clinical setting of refractory CS an IABP support represents a relatively safe circulatory support, associated with a low rate of serious complications in complex clinical scenarios.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Corsini_2022.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipo:
Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza:
Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione
383.35 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
383.35 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
1-s2.0-S2666602222000623-mmc1.docx
accesso aperto
Tipo:
File Supplementare
Licenza:
Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione
308.32 kB
Formato
Microsoft Word XML
|
308.32 kB | Microsoft Word XML | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.