Advertisement

Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 189–195 | Cite as

Mechanical Circulatory Support: a Look Back and a Look Ahead

  • Alan K. JohnEmail author
  • Preethi Pirlamarla
Heart Failure (AM Chang, Section Editor)
  • 11 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Heart Failure

Abstract

Purpose of review

Heart failure is a growing problem across the world. Although many advances have been made in heart failure therapy, patients with cardiogenic shock still have a grim prognosis. The aim of this article is to discuss the current state of mechanical circulatory support and future directions.

Recent findings

Mechanical support can be classified as temporary or durable. Temporary support ranges from the intra-aortic balloon pump to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Durable support consists of left ventricular assist devices that are long-term and can be used as a bridge to transplant or destination therapy. Many advances continue be made in terms of size, thrombogenic potential, and infection risk.

Summary

As the supply of heart transplants is limited, mechanical support options for a growing heart failure population are becoming increasingly important. Deciding when to initiate and selecting the right device are of utmost importance and should be a multidisciplinary approach.

Keywords

Mechanical support Heart failure LVAD Total artificial heart Cardiogenic shock Transcutaneous energy transmission 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

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

References

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

  1. 1.
    Cowie MR, Wood DA, Coats AJ, Thompson SG, Suresh V, Poole-Wilson PA, et al. Survival of patients with a new diagnosis of heart failure: a population based study. Heart. 2000;83:505–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steg PG, Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, et al. Baseline characteristics, management practices and in-hospital outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:358–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh M, White J, Hasdai D, Hodgson PK, Berger PB, Topol EJ, et al. Long-term outcome and its predictors among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by shock: insights from the GUSTO-1 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1752–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Web JG, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barron HV, Every NR, Parsons LS, Angeja B, Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, et al. The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. Am Heart J. 2001;141:933–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thiele H, Schuler G, Neumann FJ, Hausleiter J, Olbrich HG, Schwarz B, et al. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock design and rationale of the intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial. Am Heart J. 2012;163(6):938–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2013;128(16):e240–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, Fröhlich G, Bott-Flügel L, Byrne R, 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(19):1584–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C, et al. Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: the prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34(12):1549–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Kuchibhotla S, Esposito ML, Breton C, et al. Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(10) Established the efficacy of percutaneous biventricular support in the acute cardiogenic shock setting.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kapur N, Breton C, O'Kelly R, et al. Simultaneous, not staged, deployment of biventricular micro-axial flow Impella catheters (BiPella) is associated with improved survival for cardiogenic shock involving biventricular failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(18).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, et al. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 2006;152(3):469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1922–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Stub D, Bernard S, Pellegrino V, et al. Refractory cardiac arrest treated with mechanical CPR, hypothermia, ECMO and early reperfusion (the CHEER trial). Resuscitation. 2015;86:88–94 Established the efficacy of ECMO during cardiac arrest and suggests it should be more widely used in this setting. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• Mehra M, Goldstein D, Uriel N, et al. Two-year outcomes with a magnetically levitated cardiac pump in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1386–95 Demonstrated that the HeartMate 3 has better outcomes and lower rates of pump thrombosis compared with the previous HeartMate 2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGee E, Chorpenning K, Brown M, et al. In vivo evaluation of the HeartWare MVAD Pump. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33(4):366–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chiu W, Girdhar G, Xenos M, et al. Thromboresistance comparison of the HeartMate II ventricular assist device with the device thrombogenicity emulation-optimized HeartAssist 5 VAD. J Biomech Eng. 2014;136(2).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Copeland J, Smith R, Arabia F, Nolan PE, Sethi GK, Tsau PH, et al. Cardiac replacement with a total artificial heart as a bridge to transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:859–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carpentier A, Latremouille C, Cholley B, et al. First clinical use of a bioprosthetic total artificial heart: a report of two cases. Lancet. 2015;386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pelletier B, Spiliopoulos S, Finocchiaro T, et al. System overview of the fully implantable destination therapy-ReinHeart-total artificial heart. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47(1):80–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldsetin DJ, Naftel D, Holman W, et al. Continuous-flow devices and percutaneous site infections: clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31(11):1151–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kapur N, Alkhouli M, DeMartini T, Faraz H, George ZH, Goodwin MJ, et al. Unloading the left ventricle before reperfusion in patients with anterior ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2019;139:337–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    den Uil CA, Akin S, Jewbali L, et al. Short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shah P, Pagani F, Desai S, et al. Outcomes of patients receiving temporary circulatory support before durable ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103:106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jefferson Heart InstituteThomas Jefferson University HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations