Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- 194 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (PMCSD) consist of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, Massachusetts), Tandem Heart (Cardiac Assist, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), or extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO). They augment cardiac output, cardiac index, and cardiac power which allow the operator to mitigate hemodynamic perturbations during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). This review discusses PMCSD and their contemporary literature.
Recent literature has substantiated the hemodynamic benefits of PMCSD in HR-PCI and cardiogenic shock, but no mortality benefit was found.
As stent technology improves, PCI is expanding into high-risk cases in which PMCSD provide hemodynamic support allowing safe and complete revascularization.
KeywordsStent Mechanical circulatory support device Intra-aortic balloon pump Impella Cardiogenic shock
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Subrata Kar declares that he has 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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.•• Rihal C, Naidu S, Givertz M, Szeto W, Burke J, Kapur N, et al. Scai/Acc/Hfsa/Sts clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care: endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana De Cardiologia Intervencion; affirmation of value by the Canadian Association Of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne De Cardiologie D'intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(19):E7–E26. This article provides an expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.036.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.American College Of Emergency P, Society For Cardiovascular A, Interventions, O’gara P, Kushner F, Ascheim D, Casey D Jr, Chung M, et al. Accf/Aha guideline for the management of St-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College Of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:E78–140.Google Scholar
- 5.Cheng J, Den Uil C, Hoeks S, Van Der Ent M, Jewbali L, Van Domburg R, 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(17):2102–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Anderson M, Goldstein J, Milano C, Morris L, Kormos R, Bhama J, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2015.08.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Tomasello S, Boukhris M, Ganyukov V, Galassi A, Shukevich D, Haes B, et al. Outcome of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for complex high-risk elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a single-center experience. Heart Lung. 2015;44(4):309–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2015.03.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Perera D, Stables R, Clayton T, De Silva K, Lumley M, Clack L, et al. Long-term mortality data from the balloon pump-assisted coronary intervention study (Bcis-1): a randomized, controlled trial of elective balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2013;127(2):207–12. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.132209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F, Ferenc M, Olbrich H, Hausleiter J, et al. 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(9905):1638–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61783-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.O'neill W, Kleiman N, Moses J, Henriques J, Dixon S, Massaro 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(14):1717–27. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Kovacic J, Kini A, Banerjee S, Dangas G, Massaro J, Mehran R, et al. Patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and impaired ventricular function undergoing Pci with Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support have improved 90-day outcomes compared to intra-aortic balloon pump: a sub-study of the protect Ii trial. J Interv Cardiol. 2015;28(1):32–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/joic.12166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, Frohlich G, Bott-Flugel 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.• Ouweneel D, Eriksen E, Sjauw K, Van Dongen I, Hirsch A, Packer E, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(3):278–287. This study provides contemporary evidence for the use of Impella Vs. Iabp In cardiogenic shock after an acute myocardial infarction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, Diederich K, Hambrecht R, Niebauer J, 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(13):1276–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Dixon S, Henriques J, Mauri L, Sjauw K, Civitello A, Kar B, et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (the Protect I trial): initial U.S. experience. Jacc Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(2):91–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2008.11.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Guenther S, Theiss H, Fischer M, Sattler S, Peterss S, Born F, et al. Percutaneous extracorporeal life support for patients in therapy refractory cardiogenic shock: initial results of an interdisciplinary team. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;18(3):283–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivt505.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Lee J, Park J, Kang J, Jeon K, Jung J, Lee S, et al. The efficacy and safety of mechanical hemodynamic support in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with or without cardiogenic shock: Bayesian approach network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2015;184:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.01.081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar