Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: Review and Recent Updates

被引:0
|
作者
Saggu, Jay S. [1 ]
Seelhammer, Troy G. [2 ]
Esmaeilzadeh, Sarvie [2 ]
Roberts, John A. [1 ]
Radosevich, Misty A. [2 ]
Ripoll, Juan G. [2 ]
Soto, Juan C. Diaz [2 ]
Wieruszewski, Patrick M. [2 ]
Bohman, J. Kyle K. [2 ]
Wittwer, Erica [2 ]
Archie, Chinyere [1 ]
Nemani, Lakshmi [2 ]
Nabzdyk, Christoph G. S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Dept Anesthesiol Perioperat & Pain Med, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Anesthesiol & Perioperat Med, Rochester, MN USA
关键词
Key Words; cardiogenic shock; acute myocardial infarction; mechanical circulatory support; microaxial flow pump; venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxy- genation; ventricular assist device; INTRAAORTIC BALLOON PUMP; EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE-OXYGENATION; RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL; VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE; IMPROVE SURVIVAL; HEART-FAILURE; COUNTERPULSATION; THROMBOLYSIS; TRANSFUSION; IMPELLA;
D O I
10.1053/j.jvca.2024.12.007
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Cardiogenic shock (CS) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a life-threatening syndrome characterized by systemic hypoperfusion that can quickly progress to multiorgan failure and death. Various devices and configurations of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) exist to support patients, each with unique pathophysiological characteristics. The Intra-aortic balloon pump can improve coronary perfusion, decrease afterload, and indirectly augment cardiac output. TandemHeart, a percutaneous ventricular assist device, can decrease left ventricular preload and directly augment cardiac output. Neither the intra-aortic balloon pump nor the percutaneous ventricular assist device has been shown to decrease mortality in the revascularization era. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation can offer complete cardiopulmonary support; however, it has not been shown to decrease mortality. Recent studies have indicated that microaxial flow pumps, such as Abiomed's Impella family of devices, can decrease mortality in the AMI-CS population. Managing AMI-CS requires careful clinical assessment, as no single MCS device is universally effective, and device-related complications are common. While venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation provides complete support, it has not demonstrated a mortality benefit in major trials and carries significant risks. In contrast, microaxial flow pumps have shown a mortality benefit but with higher complication rates. Ongoing research and advancements aim to refine MCS strategies, improve device safety, and enhance patient outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:1049 / 1066
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Contemporary device management of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction
    Suleiman, Tariq
    Scott, Alexander
    Tong, David
    Khanna, Vikram
    Kunadian, Vijay
    HEART FAILURE REVIEWS, 2022, 27 (03) : 915 - 925
  • [32] Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: a critical appraisal
    Masiero, Giulia
    Cardaioli, Francesco
    Tarantini, Giuseppe
    EXPERT REVIEW OF CARDIOVASCULAR THERAPY, 2022, 20 (06) : 443 - 454
  • [33] Timing of mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Attachaipanich, Tanawat
    Attachaipanich, Suthinee
    Kaewboot, Kotchakorn
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL PLUS: CARDIOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2025, 50
  • [34] Currently Available Options for Mechanical Circulatory Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock
    Wegermann, Zachary K.
    Rao, Sunil, V
    CARDIOLOGY CLINICS, 2020, 38 (04) : 527 - 542
  • [35] Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: The Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative
    Basir, Mir B.
    Schreiber, Theodore
    Dixon, Simon
    Alaswad, Khaldoon
    Patel, Kirit
    Almany, Steven
    Khandelwal, Akshay
    Hanson, Ivan
    George, Augustine
    Ashbrook, Michael
    Blank, Nimrod
    Abdelsalam, Murad
    Sareen, Nishtha
    Timmis, Steven B. H.
    O'Neill, William W.
    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, 2018, 91 (03) : 454 - 461
  • [36] Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for acute myocardial infarction associated cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing early revascularization
    Ali, Shafaqat
    Kumar, Manoj
    Badu, Irisha
    Farooq, Faryal
    Alsaeed, Thannon
    Sultan, Muhammad
    Atti, Lalitsiri
    Duhan, Sanchit
    Agrawal, Pratik
    Brar, Vijaywant
    Helmy, Tarek
    Tayeb, Taher
    AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL PLUS: CARDIOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2024, 46
  • [37] Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock
    Frost, Andrew
    Haddad, Haissam
    Shavadia, Jay
    CURRENT OPINION IN CARDIOLOGY, 2020, 35 (02) : 145 - 149
  • [38] Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO
    Karamil, Mina
    den Uil, Corstiaan A.
    Ouweneel, Dagmar M.
    Scholte, Niels T. B.
    Engstrom, Annemarie E.
    Akin, Sakir
    Lagrand, Wim K.
    Vlaar, Alexander P. J.
    Jewbali, Lucia S.
    Henriques, Jose P. S.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL-ACUTE CARDIOVASCULAR CARE, 2020, 9 (02) : 164 - 172
  • [39] Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Heart Failure Complicated with Cardiogenic Shock
    Xenitopoulou, Maria Parthena
    Ziampa, Kyriaki
    Evangeliou, Alexandros P.
    Tzikas, Stergios
    Vassilikos, Vasileios
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (09)
  • [40] Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Sepsis-Associated Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction
    Sato, Ryota
    Hasegawa, Daisuke
    Guo, Stephanie C.
    Nishida, Kazuki
    Dugar, Siddharth
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2024, 38 (01) : 207 - 213