Outcomes With Femoral IABP in Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock

ARTHUR RESHAD GARAN, ARVIND BHIMARAJ, RACHNA KATARIA, ANIKET RALI, E. WILSON GRANDIN, ALVARO A. DELGADO, A. J.A.R. KOCHAR, BORUI LI, MANREET K. KANWAR, SHASHANK S. SINHA, JAIME HERNANDEZ-MONTFORT, JACOB ABRAHAM, S. O.N.G. LI, ALEXANDRA ARIAS-MENDOZA, HIRAM BEZERRA, VANESSA BLUMER, I. H.U.I. CHIANG, MARY JANE FARR, JUSTIN FRIED, A. N.N. GAGESHELLEY HALL, GAVIN W. HICKEY, ONYEDIKA ILONZE, M. A.Y.A. GUGLIN, WISSAM KHALIFE, J. U. KIM, SCOTT LUNDGREN, JEFFREY MARBACH, JOSEPH MISHKIN, SANDEEP NATHAN, MOHIT PAHUJA, ANDREW SCHWARTZMAN, VAN A.N.K.H.U.E. TON, OLEG ALEC VISHNEVSKY, ESTHER VOROVICH, JOYCE WALD, ELRIC ZWECK, QIUYUE KONG, PAAVNI SANGAL, KAROL D. WALEC, PETER ZAZZALI, NEIL M. HARWANI, KEVIN JOHN, CLAUDIUS MAHR, DANIEL BURKHOFF, NAVIN K. KAPUR

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) insertion has not been shown to improve mortality rates in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) but is increasingly used in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS). Objective: We sought to compare IABP-related outcomes in patients with HF-CS and AMI-CS. Methods: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group registry was queried for patients with CS receiving femoral IABPs as the first temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) device. Patients were divided into those with AMI-CS or HF-CS and were excluded if they received the IABP in conjunction with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or another device concomitantly. Outcomes, including rates of native heart survival (NHS) (ie, weaned from IABP and discharged), heart replacement therapy (HRT) (ie, bridge to durable left ventricular assist device or heart transplant), need for another tMCS device, and death, were recorded and compared between the 2 cohorts. Results: In total, 886 patients were supported by IABPs as the first tMCS device; of these, 407 (45.6%) had HF-CS and 384 (43.3%) had AMI-CS. Those with HF-CS were younger but had higher burdens of cardiovascular comorbidities than those with AMI-CS. Among the HF-CS cohort, 33.2% had NHS, and 26.7% were bridged to HRT without another tMCS device. In the AMI-CS cohort, 43.4% had NHS and 2.1% were bridged to HRT without another tMCS device. Mortality rates were higher in AMI-CS group (36.4% vs 20.6%; P < 0.001). Complication rates were higher in those with AMI-CS and in those needing another tMCS device. Conclusion: Patients with HF-CS were more likely to have a favorable outcome with IABPs than those with AMI-CS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Cardiac Failure
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2025

Keywords

  • Cardiogenic shock
  • IABP
  • acute myocardial infarction
  • heart failure
  • hemodynamics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes With Femoral IABP in Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this