Mechanical Circulatory Support: a Look Back and a Look Ahead
- 11 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsMechanical support Heart failure LVAD Total artificial heart Cardiogenic shock Transcutaneous energy transmission
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.•• 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
- 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