Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives and Considerations of IABP in the Era of ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock

  • Review
  • Published:
Advances in Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been rapid, and its use worldwide in patients with cardiogenic shock is increasingly widespread. However, current statistical data and clinical research do not demonstrate its significant improvement in the patient prognosis. This review focuses on the widely used intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), analyzing and comparing their characteristics, efficacy, risk of complications, and the current exploration status of left ventricular mechanical unloading. Subsequently, we propose a rational approach to viewing the negative outcomes of current MCS, and look ahead to the future development trends of IABP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Samsky MD, Morrow DA, Proudfoot AG, Hochman JS, Thiele H, Rao SV. Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a review. JAMA. 2021;326(18):1840–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fox KA, Steg PG, Eagle KA, Goodman SG, Anderson FA, Granger CB, et al. Decline in rates of death and heart failure in acute coronary syndromes, 1999–2006. JAMA. 2007;297(17):1892–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Psotka MA, Rosner C, Singh R, Sinha SS, et al. A standardized and comprehensive approach to the management of cardiogenic shock. Heart Failure. 2020;8(11):879–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(9):625–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, Fuernau G, de Waha S, Meyer-Saraei R, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(25):2419–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, Henry TD, Jacobs AK, Kapur NK, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(16):e232–68.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(32):2671–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zeymer U, Bueno H, Granger C, Hochman J, Huber K, Lettino M, et al. ACCA-position paper for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020;9:183–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Boehm M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599–726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Combes A, Price S, Slutsky AS, Brodie D. Temporary circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. Lancet. 2020;396(10245):199–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hiratzka L, Bakris G, Beckman J, O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:485–510 (Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013;62(11)).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial REVASCULARIZATION. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dudzinsk JE, Gnall E, Kowey PR. A review of percutaneous mechanical support devices and strategies. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2018;19(1):21–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kantrowitz A, Tjønneland S, Freed PS, Phillips SJ, Butner AN, Sherman JL. Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 1968;203(2):113–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J, Ferenc M, Olbrich H-G, Hausleiter J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1287–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J, Ferenc M, Olbrich H-G, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Thelemann N, Neumann F, Hausleiter J, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: long-term 6-year outcome of the randomized IABP-SHOCK II trial. Circulation. 2019;139:395–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kovack PJ, Rasak MA, Bates ER, Ohman EM, Stomel RJ. Thrombolysis plus aortic counterpulsation: improved survival in patients who present to community hospitals with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;29(7):1454–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sanborn TA, Sleeper LA, Bates ER, Jacobs AK, Boland J, French JK, et al. Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(3S1):1123–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gu J, Hu W, Xiao H, Feng X, Chen Y, Zhang D. Intra-aortic balloon pump improves clinical prognosis and attenuates C-reactive protein level in acute STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cardiology. 2010;117(1):75–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahmad Y, Sen S, Shun-Shin MJ, Ouyang J, Finegold JA, Al-Lamee RK, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(6):931–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chahdi HO, Berbach L, Boivin-Proulx L-A, Hillani A, Noiseux N, Matteau A, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in post-myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2022;38(10):1525–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(6):933–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hawranek M, Gierlotka M, Pres D, Zembala M, Gąsior M. Nonroutine use of intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction with successful and unsuccessful primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(18):1885–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang C-C, Liao P-C, Ke S-R, Hsu J-C. TCT-21 door-to-ECMO before door-to-balloon? Early implementation of ECMO might improve the survival of patients with STEMI complicated by refractory cardiogenic shock. J the Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(18S):B9-B.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. den Uil CA, Van Mieghem NM, Bastos M, Jewbali LS, Lenzen MJ, Engstrom AE, et al. Primary intra-aortic balloon support versus inotropes for decompensated heart failure and low output: a randomised trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(7):586–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Malick W, Fried JA, Masoumi A, Nair A, Zuver A, Huang A, et al. Comparison of the hemodynamic response to intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock resulting from acute myocardial infarction versus acute decompensated heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2019;124(12):1947–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Estep JD, Cordero-Reyes AM, Bhimaraj A, Trachtenberg B, Khalil N, Loebe M, et al. Percutaneous placement of an intra-aortic balloon pump in the left axillary/subclavian position provides safe, ambulatory long-term support as bridge to heart transplantation. JACC Heart Failure. 2013;1(5):382–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bhimaraj A, Agrawal T, Duran A, Tamimi O, Amione-Guerra J, Trachtenberg B, et al. Percutaneous left axillary artery placement of intra-aortic balloon pump in advanced heart failure patients. Heart Failure. 2020;8(4):313–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Tanaka A, Tuladhar SM, Onsager D, Asfaw Z, Ota T, Juricek C, et al. The subclavian intraaortic balloon pump: a compelling bridge device for advanced heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(6):2151–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Choi KH, Yang JH, Park TK, Lee JM, Song YB, Hahn J-Y, et al. Differential prognostic implications of vasoactive inotropic score for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to use of mechanical circulatory support. Crit Care Med. 2021;49(5):770–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brunner S, Guenther SP, Lackermair K, Peterss S, Orban M, Boulesteix A-L, et al. Extracorporeal life support in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(18):2355–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lackermair K, Brunner S, Orban M, Peterss S, Orban M, Theiss HD, et al. Outcome of patients treated with extracorporeal life support in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: 1-year result from the ECLS-Shock study. Clin Res Cardiol. 2021;110:1412–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ostadal P, Rokyta R, Karasek J, Kruger A, Vondrakova D, Janotka M, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the therapy of cardiogenic shock: results of the ECMO-CS randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2023;147(6):454–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Extracorporeal Life Support Organization: ECLS Registry Report:International Summary [updated 2023 April 18; cited 2023 April 30]. Available from: https://www.elso.org/registry/internationalsummaryandreports/internationalsummary.aspx.

  36. Whiteside HL, Hillerson D, Abdel-Latif A, Gupta VA. Prognostic implication of pre-cannulation cardiac arrest in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for the management of cardiogenic shock. J Intensive Care Med. 2023;38(2):202–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kittleson MM, Patel JK, Moriguchi JD, Kawano M, Davis S, Hage A, et al. Heart transplant recipients supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: outcomes from a single-center experience. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30(11):1250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, Sjauw KD, Engström A, Lagrand WK, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:1922–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Vallabhajosyula S, Dunlay SM, Barsness GW, Miller PE, Cheungpasitporn W, Stulak JM, et al. Sex disparities in the use and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock. CJC open. 2020;2(6):462–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Vojjini R, Patlolla SH, Cheungpasitporn W, Kumar A, Sundaragiri PR, Doshi RP, et al. Racial disparities in the utilization and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med. 2021;10(7):1459.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lauridsen MD, Josiassen J, Schmidt M, Butt JH, Østergaard L, Schou M, et al. Prognosis of myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock according to preadmission out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2021;162:135–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Takahashi K, Kubo S, Ikuta A, Osakada K, Takamatsu M, Taguchi Y, et al. Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of mechanical circulatory support-related complications in patients with cardiogenic shock. J Cardiol. 2022;79(2):163–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Freund A, Jobs A, Lurz P, Feistritzer H-J, de Waha-Thiele S, Meyer-Saraei R, et al. Frequency and impact of bleeding on outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock. Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(10):1182–93.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Aubron C, Cheng AC, Pilcher D, Leong T, Magrin G, Cooper DJ, et al. Factors associated with outcomes of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: a 5-year cohort study. Crit Care. 2013;17:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, Patel J, Arabia F, Moriguchi J, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97(2):610–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jia D, Yang IX, Ling RR, Syn N, Poon WH, Murughan K, et al. Vascular complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(12):e1269–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ferguson JJ, Cohen M, Freedman RJ, Stone GW, Miller MF, Joseph DL, et al. The current practice of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation: results from the Benchmark Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(5):1456–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bréchot N, Demondion P, Santi F, Lebreton G, Pham T, Dalakidis A, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump protects against hydrostatic pulmonary oedema during peripheral venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7(1):62–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mao C-T, Wang J-L, Chen D-Y, Tsai M-L, Lin Y-S, Cherng W-J, et al. Benefits of intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction patients in severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularization. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8): e0160070.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Timóteo AT, Nogueira MA, Rosa SA, Belo A, Ferreira RC, Investigators P. Role of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: evidence from the Portuguese nationwide registry. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2016;5(7):23–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Mortazavi BJ, Hurley NC, Krumholz HM, Curtis JP, et al. Association of use of an intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device vs intra-aortic balloon pump with in-hospital mortality and major bleeding among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2020;323(8):734–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Chu S, Sun P, Zhang Y, Li J, Liu L, Shi Y, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump on in-hospital outcomes of cardiogenic shock: findings from a nationwide registry. China ESC Heart Failure. 2021;8(4):3286–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. de Jong MM, Lorusso R, Al Awami F, Matteuci F, Parise O, Lozekoot P, et al. Vascular complications following intra-aortic balloon pump implantation: an updated review. Perfusion. 2018;33(2):96–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Varshney AS, Berg DD, Zhou G, Sinnenberg L, Hirji S, DeFilippis EM, et al. Bridging strategies and cardiac replacement outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure-related cardiogenic shock. European J Heart Failure. 2023;25(3):425–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Burkhoff D, Sayer G, Doshi D, Uriel N. Hemodynamics of mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(23):2663–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lüsebrink E, Binzenhöfer L, Kellnar A, Müller C, Scherer C, Schrage B, et al. Venting during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Clin Res Cardiol. 2023;112(4):464–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Eliet J, Gaudard P, Zeroual N, Rouvière P, Albat B, Mourad M, et al. Effect of Impella during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on pulmonary artery flow as assessed by end-tidal carbon dioxide. ASAIO J. 2018;64(4):502–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Donker DW, Brodie D, Henriques JP, Broomé M. Left ventricular unloading during veno-arterial ECMO: a review of percutaneous and surgical unloading interventions. Perfusion. 2019;34(2):98–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Baldetti L, Gramegna M, Beneduce A, Melillo F, Moroni F, Calvo F, et al. Strategies of left ventricular unloading during VA-ECMO support: a network meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2020;312:16–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Freund A, Desch S, Pöss J, Sulimov D, Sandri M, Majunke N, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med. 2022;11(5):1256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Tsao N-W, Shih C-M, Yeh J-S, Kao Y-T, Hsieh M-H, Ou K-L, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention may improve survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock. J Crit Care. 2012;27(5):530.e1-530.e11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, Romeo A, Francioni S, Chiarotti F, et al. Percutaneous assist devices in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: review, meta-analysis. World J Cardiol. 2016;8(1):98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Overtchouk P, Pascal J, Lebreton G, Hulot J-S, Luyt C-E, Combes A, et al. Outcome after revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock on extracorporeal life support. EuroInterv J EuroPCR Collab Work Group Interv Cardiol Eur Soc Cardiol. 2018;13(18):e2160–8.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Russo JJ, Aleksova N, Pitcher I, Couture E, Parlow S, Faraz M, et al. Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(6):654–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Li Y, Yan S, Gao S, Liu M, Lou S, Liu G, et al. Effect of an intra-aortic balloon pump with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;55(3):395–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Vallabhajosyula S, O’Horo JC, Antharam P, Ananthaneni S, Vallabhajosyula S, Stulak JM, et al. Concomitant intra-aortic balloon pump use in cardiogenic shock requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(9):e006930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Zeng P, Yang C, Chen J, Fan Z, Cai W, Huang Y, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of ECMO with or without IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:917610.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Benenati S, Toma M, Canale C, Vergallo R, Bona RD, Ricci D, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock not secondary to cardiotomy: a network meta-analysis. Heart Fail Rev. 2022;27(3):927–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Aso S, Matsui H, Fushimi K, Yasunaga H. 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(11):1974–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wang L, Xing Z. Short-term outcomes of intra-aortic balloon pump combined with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Artif Organs. 2019;43(6):561–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Duan J, Shi Y, Luo G, Peng Y, Duan B, Zhang Z. Short-term efficacy and safety of different mechanical hemodynamic support devices for cardiogenic shock or high-risk Pci: a network meta-analysis of thirty-seven trials. Shock. 2021;55(1):5–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Meertens MM, Tichelbäcker T, Macherey-Meyer S, Heyne S, Braumann S, Nießen SF, et al. Meta-analysis of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in combination with intra-aortic balloon pump vs. extracorporeal membrane oxygenation only in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1104357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Nishi T, Ishii M, Tsujita K, Okamoto H, Koto S, Nakai M, et al. Outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation plus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11(7): e023713.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Schrage B, Becher PM, Bernhardt A, Bezerra H, Blankenberg S, Brunner S, et al. Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an international, multicenter cohort study. Circulation. 2020;142(22):2095–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Tonna J, Selzman C, Bartos J, Presson A, Jo Y, Becker LB, et al. Critical care management, hospital case volume, and survival after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Circulation. 2020;142(Suppl_4):A117-A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Grandin EW, Nunez JI, Willar B, Kennedy K, Rycus P, Tonna JE, et al. Mechanical left ventricular unloading in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(13):1239–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Au S-Y, Fong K-M, Tsang C-FS, Chan K-CA, Wong CY, Ng W-YG, et al. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with concomitant Impella versus concomitant intra-aortic-balloon-pump for cardiogenic shock. Perfusion. 2023;38(1):51–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Char S, Fried J, Melehy A, Mehta S, Ning Y, Kurlansky P, et al. Clinical efficacy of direct or indirect left ventricular unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for primary cardiogenic shock. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;165(2):699-707.e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Gass A, Palaniswamy C, Aronow WS, Kolte D, Khera S, Ahmad H, et al. Peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in combination with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiovascular compromise. Cardiology. 2014;129(3):137–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Petroni T, Harrois A, Amour J, Lebreton G, Brechot N, Tanaka S, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump effects on macrocirculation and microcirculation in cardiogenic shock patients supported by venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(9):2075–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, Szeto WY, Burke JA, Kapur NK, et al. 2015 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):e7–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Naidu SS, Baran DA, Jentzer JC, Hollenberg SM, van Diepen S, Basir MB, et al. SCAI SHOCK stage classification expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies: this statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in December 2021. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(9):933–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Acosta ME, Belkin MN, Nathan S. Selection of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: patient-specific considerations and insights from contemporary clinical data. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2023;38(1):47–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding

The journal’s Rapid Service Fee were supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC-82102104) (L. Y. Y), the China Shanxi Provincial Postdoctoral Science Foundation, 2021M702054 (L. Y. Y), and the Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province, 20210302123485 (L. Y. Y), for Dr. Yuanyuan Lin’s research.

Disclosures

Zelin Chen, Yuping Gao, and Yuanyuan Lin declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, Zelin Chen; writing—review and editing, Yuanyuan Lin; visualization, Zelin Chen; supervision, Yuping Gao; all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during its development.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Taiyuan, 030032, China

    Zelin Chen

  2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, No. 99, Longcheng Street, Taiyuan, 030032, China

    Yuping Gao & Yuanyuan Lin

Authors
  1. Zelin Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuping Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuanyuan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yuping Gao or Yuanyuan Lin.

Additional information

Yuping Gao and Yuanyuan Lin are the co-corresponding authors of this article.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Z., Gao, Y. & Lin, Y. Perspectives and Considerations of IABP in the Era of ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock. Adv Ther 40, 4151–4165 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02598-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02598-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation