IABP Reference for Physicians

Jentzer JC, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 1– 12..

Abstract

Background: Randomized studies of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in cardiogenic shock (CS) have focused exclusively on patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) without stratification according to shock severity. We examined the association between IABP and mortality in CS patients across the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages.

Methods: We included cardiac intensive care unit patients admitted from 2007 to 2015 with CS from any etiology. In-hospital mortality associated with IABP was examined in each SCAI shock stage. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to determine the association between IABP and in-hospital mortality.

Results: We included 934 patients, with a mean age of 68 ± 14 years; 60% had ACS. The distribution of SCAI shock stages was: B, 41%; C, 13%; D, 38%; E, 8%. In-hospital mortality was lower in the 39% of patients who received IABP (27% vs. 43%, adjusted OR with IABP after IPTW 0.53, 95% CI 0.40-0.72, p < .0001). IABP use was associated with lower crude in-hospital mortality in each SCAI shock stage (all p < .05, except p = .08 in SCAI shock stage E). We did not observe any significant heterogeneity in the association between IABP use and in-hospital mortality as a function of SCAI shock stage.

Conclusions: IABP use was associated with substantially lower in-hospital mortality in patients with CS, without differences in this effect across the SCAI shock stages. Future studies should account for the severity and etiology of shock when evaluating the efficacy of IABP for CS. Keywords: cardiogenic; intra-aortic balloon pump; mechanical circulatory support; mortality; organ failure; shock; shockCICU.

Baran D, et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Dec;96(7):1339-1347

Abstract

Background: The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state.

Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema.

Results: A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is “at risk” for cardiogenic shock, stage B is “beginning” shock, stage C is “classic” cardiogenic shock, stage D is “deteriorating”, and E is “extremis”. The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse.

Conclusion: This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre-hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.