Next Article in Journal
COVID-19 and Dentistry in 72 Questions: An Overview of the Literature
Next Article in Special Issue
Relationship between 30 Days Mortality and Incidence of Intraoperative Cardiac Arrest According to the Timing of ECMO
Previous Article in Journal
Otosurgery with the High-Definition Three-Dimensional (3D) Exoscope: Advantages and Disadvantages
Previous Article in Special Issue
Kinetic GFR Outperforms CKD-EPI for Slow Graft Function Prediction in the Immediate Postoperative Period Following Kidney Transplantation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock May Still Be a Valuable Association

1
Interventional Cardiology Unit, Division of Cardiology, Geneva University Hospitals, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
2
Intensive Care Division, Geneva University Hospitals, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(4), 778; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040778
Submission received: 5 February 2021 / Accepted: 14 February 2021 / Published: 16 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Status of Cardiac Anesthesiology and Intensive Care)

1. Physiology of the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP)

The IABP gives rise to greater myocardial perfusion by increasing the coronary pressure gradient from the aorta to the coronary circulation at a time when the aortic valve is closed [1]. Active deflation before the onset of systole creates a dead space in the thoracic aorta, which reduces afterload and promotes forward flow from the left ventricle. This stimulates a reduction in LV end-diastolic pressure, volume, wall tension, and work along with preservation or an increase in stroke volume and cardiac output [1]. The amplitude of the hemodynamic effect is dependent on the balloon size in proportion to the aorta and the ventricular arterial coupling. Indeed, an increase in aortic compliance and a decrease in systemic arterial tone will result in diminution of the IABP effect. Therefore, the predominant benefit of IABP on high-risk patients with severe coronary stenosis may relate to a reduction in oxygen demand through LV systolic unloading over and above that stimulated by diastolic augmentation of the coronary blood flow. Moreover, by decreasing LV end-diastolic pressure following an unloading of the LV, IABP decreases the LV wall tension and LV transmural pressure [1] (Figure 1).

2. Evidence-Based Medicine Concerning IABP

Few studies are available concerning the use of IABP compared to standard of care (noradrenalin, dobutamine, and intensive care unit management) or Impella mechanical support device [2,3,4] (Table 1).

3. Our Point of View

As the physiopathology effect of IABP is well known, it has a crucial role to play in cardiogenic shock related to ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), especially as most of the patients might be old with several comorbidities [5]. Indeed, patients undergoing a low cardiac output syndrome following STEMI require both an increase in systemic perfusion of all organs and a LV unloading. For instance, if an Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) insertion to treat a post-STEMI low cardiac output syndrome improves extra-cardiac organ perfusion, the associated increase in systemic afterload may be harmful to an ischemic heart as it decreases coronary and myocardial perfusion in a STEMI setting. In this regard, upstream insertion of an IABP from the start of ischemic cardiogenic shock seems to us a valuable option. This therapeutic method is crucial because a technique like ECMO, which is used to assist in increasing blood pressure and organ perfusion, must not impede coronary perfusion by an increase in systemic afterload, LV wall tension, and LV transmural pressure. IABP is also an inexpensive device that is easy to insert. In addition, there are different options of vascular access, such as femoral, brachial, axillary, and subclavian arteries. However, to the best of our knowledge and expert opinions, upstream insertion of an Impella in association with ECMO to unload the supported LV support in ischemic cardiogenic might also be a good option but more expensive (Figure 1) [6].

4. Conclusions

From our point of view, to the best of knowledge and with the lack of a pure randomized control trial comparing IABP and standard of care in ischemic cardiogenic shock, IABP in ischemic cardiogenic shock still has a role to play by itself or in association with ECMO.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.R., R.G. and K.B.; writing—original draft preparation, F.R., R.G. and K.B.; writing—review and editing, F.R., R.G. and K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Myat, A.; Patel, N.; Tehrani, S.; Banning, A.P.; Redwood, S.R.; Bhatt, D.L. Percutaneous circulatory assist devices for high-risk coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015, 8, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ouweneel, D.M.; Eriksen, E.; Sjauw, K.D.; van Dongen, I.M.; Hirsch, A.; Packer, E.J.; Vis, M.M.; Wykrzykowska, J.J.; Koch, K.T.; Baan, J.; et al. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 69, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Thiele, H.; Zeymer, U.; Neumann, F.J.; Ferenc, M.; Olbrich, H.G.; Hausleiter, J.; de Waha, A.; Richardt, G.; Hennersdorf, M.; Empen, K.; et al. Intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial investigators. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): Final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2013, 382, 1638–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Seyfarth, M.; Sibbing, D.; Bauer, I.; Fröhlich, G.; Bott-Flügel, L.; Byrne, R.; Dirschinger, J.; Kastrati, A.; Schömig, A. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. White, J.M.; Ruygrok, P.N. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in contemporary practice—Where are we? Heart Lung Circ. 2015, 24, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Helleu, B.; Auffret, V.; Bedossa, M.; Gilard, M.; Letocart, V.; Chassaing, S.; Angoulvant, D.; Commeau, P.; Range, G.; Prunier, F.; et al. Current indications for the intra-aortic balloon pump: The CP-GARO registry. Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2018, 111, 739–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Intra-aortic balloon pump. LVEDP: Left ventricle end-diastolic pressure; ECMO: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; LV: Left ventricle; CABG: coronary artery bypass graft.
Figure 1. Intra-aortic balloon pump. LVEDP: Left ventricle end-diastolic pressure; ECMO: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; LV: Left ventricle; CABG: coronary artery bypass graft.
Jcm 10 00778 g001
Table 1. Summary of the evidence.
Table 1. Summary of the evidence.
NameYearClinical PicturePatients NumberIABP vs. Which MCSLength of FU (Months)Outcomes
Impress trial 12017CS48Impella CP1No difference in mortality
IABP SHOCK II trial 22012CA and CS600Control (standard of care)12CA: no difference in mortality;CS: no difference in mortality
ISAR-SHOCK trial 32008CS25Impella 2.51No difference in mortality
CA = cardiac arrest; CS = cardiogenic shock; IABP = intra-aortic balloon pump; MCS = mechanical support device; FU = follow-up;1 Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction; 2 Intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock; 3 Efficacy Study of LV Assist Device to Treat Patients with Cardiogenic Shock.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rey, F.; Giraud, R.; Bendjelid, K. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock May Still Be a Valuable Association. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040778

AMA Style

Rey F, Giraud R, Bendjelid K. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock May Still Be a Valuable Association. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(4):778. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040778

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rey, Florian, Raphaël Giraud, and Karim Bendjelid. 2021. "Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock May Still Be a Valuable Association" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 4: 778. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10040778

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop