Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Cardiogenic Shock: State of the Art

  • L. A. HajjarEmail author
  • J.-L. Teboul
Part of the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine book series (AUICEM)


Cardiogenic shock is the clinical expression of circulatory failure, as a consequence of left, right or biventricular dysfunction. Cardiogenic shock is also defined as a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion due to primary cardiac dysfunction [1–3]. Cardiogenic shock is not simply a decrease in cardiac contractile function, but also a multiorgan dysfunction syndrome involving the entire circulatory system, often complicated by a systemic inflammatory response syndrome with severe cellular and metabolic abnormalities [4]. The clinical presentation of cardiogenic shock varies from hemodynamic abnormalities of pre-shock to mild shock, progressing to more profound shock and finally refractory shock, which invariably is associated with high mortality rates. Additional insults can occur, such as arrhythmias, vasodilation, ischemia and infection, acutely changing the trajectory of the disease [5]. The contemporary management of cardiogenic shock involves early diagnosis and directed therapy to optimize oxygen delivery and tissue perfusion.


  1. 1.
    Mebazaa A, Combes A, Van Diepen S, et al. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:760–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018;39:119–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136:e232–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandawat A, Rao SV. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellumkonda L, Gul B, Masri SC. Evolving concepts in diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:1104–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction—etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1063–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reynolds HR, Hochman JS. Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation. 2008;117:686–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harjola VP, Lassus J, Sionis A, et al. Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015;17:501–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ince C. Hemodynamic coherence and the rationale for monitoring the microcirculation. Crit Care. 2015;19:S8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edul VS, Enrico C, Laviolle B, et al. Quantitative assessment of the microcirculation in healthy volunteers and in patients with septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:1443–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trzeciak S, McCoy JV, Phillip Dellinger R, et al. Early increases in microcirculatory perfusion during protocol-directed resuscitation are associated with reduced multi-organ failure at 24 h in patients with sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:2210–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jozwiak M, Monnet X, Teboul JL. Less or more hemodynamic monitoring in critically ill patients. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24:309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Price S, Platz E, Cullen L, et al. Expert consensus document: echocardiography and lung ultrasonography for the assessment and management of acute heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2017;14:427–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:779–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamzaoui O, Jozwiak M, Geffriaud T, et al. Norepinephrine exerts an inotropic effect during the early phase of human septic shock. Br J Anesth. 2018;120:517–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McIntyre WF, Um KJ, Alhazzani W, et al. Association of vasopressin plus catecholamine vasopressors vs catecholamines alone with atrial fibrillation in patients with distributive shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;319:1889–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levy B, Perez P, Perny J, et al. Comparison of norepinephrine-dobutamine to epinephrine for hemodynamics, lactate metabolism, and organ function variables in cardiogenic shock. A prospective, randomized pilot study. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:450–455 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tarvasmaki T, Lassus J, Varpula M, et al. Current real-life use of vasopressors and inotropes in cardiogenic shock—adrenaline use is associated with excess organ injury and mortality. Crit Care. 2016;20:208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levy BC, Clere-Jehl R, Legras A, et al. Epinephrine versus norepinephrine in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:173–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Léopold V, Gayat E, Pirracchio R, et al. Epinephrine and short-term survival in cardiogenic shock: an individual data meta-analysis of 2583 patients. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:847–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toscani L, Aya HD, Antonakaki D, et al. What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2017;21:207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamura RE, Vincent JL, Fukushima JT, et al. A liberal strategy of red blood cell transfusion reduces cardiogenic shock in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:1314–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hajjar LA, Fukushima JT, Almeida JP, et al. Strategies to reduce blood transfusion: a Latin-American perspective. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2015;28:81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring.Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marik PE. Obituary: pulmonary artery catheter 1970 to 2013. Ann Intensive Care. 2013;3:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Backer D, Hajjar LA, Pinsky MR. Is there still a place for the Swan–Ganz catheter? We are not sure. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:960–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Backer D, Bakker J, Cecconi M, et al. Alternatives to the Swan-Ganz catheter. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44:730–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb 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
  29. 29.
    Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2006;295:2511–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2419–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Waha S, Jobs A, Pöss J, et al. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2018;7:28–37.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. One-year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kapelios CJ, Terrovitis JV, Nanas JN. Current and future applications of the intra-aortic balloon pump. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2014;29:258–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1287–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J. 2017;9:119–77.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, et al. The outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the type of revascularization: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2013;165:679–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aso S, Matsui H, Fushimi K, et al. The effect of intraaortic balloon pumping under venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality of cardiogenic patients: an analysis using a nationwide inpatient database. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:1974–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mandawat A, Rao SV. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004337.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    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;26:1276–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, et al. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:688–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, 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;52:1584–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3523–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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;34:1549–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hsu PL, Parker J, Egger C. Mechanical circulatory support for right heart failure: current technology and future outlook. Artif Organs. 2012;36:332–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kleeber ME, Haddad EV, Choi CW, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock. JACC Heart Fail. 2018;6:503–16.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Maxhera B, Albert A, Ansari E, et al. Survival predictors in ventricular assist device patients with prior extracorporeal life support: selecting appropriate candidates. Artif Organs. 2014;38:727–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ouweneel DM, Schotborogh JV, Limpens J, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1922–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marasco SF, Lukas G, McDonald M, et al. Review of ECMO (extra corporeal membrane oxygenation) support in critically ill adult patients. Heart Lung Circ. 2008;17(Suppl 4):S41–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). Guidelines for adult cardiac failure. Accessed 31 Oct 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiopneumologyInstituto do Coracao, Universidade de São PauloSao PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Cardiologic Intensive Care UnitHospital SirioLibanesSao PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Faculté de Médecine Paris-SudUniversite Paris-SudLe Kremlim-BicêtreFrance
  4. 4.Service de reánimation médicale, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud, Hôpital de BicêtreLe Kremlin-BicêtreFrance
  5. 5.Inserm UMR_S999Le Plessis-RobinsonFrance

Personalised recommendations