Annals of translational medicine
-
There has been a significant increase in the utilisation of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for the management of cardiogenic shock over recent years, with new devices being developed and introduced with the aim of improving outcomes for this group of patients. MCS devices may be used as a bridge to recovery or transplantation or intended as a destination therapy. Although these devices are not without their complications, good outcomes are achieved, but not without risk of significant complications. In this article, the complications of MCS devices have been reviewed, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ventricular assist devices (VAD)-temporary and durable.
-
Cardiogenic shock remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction and advanced heart failure. Intra-aortic balloon pump has been the most widely used short-term mechanical circulatory support device to rapidly stabilize hemodynamics. However, it provides modest support, current evidence does not show a decrease in mortality, and the latest guidelines no longer recommend its routine use. ⋯ Premature initiation of mechanical circulatory support exposes the patient to unnecessary risk, whereas delaying therapy leads to irreversible end-organ injury, rendering any intervention medically futile. Cannulation methods, pump designs, and circuit configurations differ between devices, as do the adverse effects and physiological impact on the myocardium, which needs to be factored into consideration before deployment on the patient in cardiogenic shock. This article will review the commonly used percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in the setting of cardiogenic shock, compare their advantages and disadvantages, evaluate key clinical trials, and discuss a practical approach to guide clinicians' decision and management.