Percutaneous Vascular Access


Goals/Objectives

  • IABP

  • IVC Filter

Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock

Jay K. Bhama
Robert L. Kormos
Thomas G. Gleason

From Vincent JL, Abraham E, Moore FA, Kochanek PM, Fink MP: Textbook of Critical Care, 6th edition (Saunders 2011)

A n estimated 61.8 million people in the United States have heart disease, among whom 950,000 die annually. Of these, 540,000 people suffer myocardial infarctions each year; 193,000 succumb to complications directly related to the infarction. The leading cause of death among hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) continues to be cardiogenic shock. The incidence of cardiogenic shock complicating AMI (approximately 7%) has remained constant over the past 25 years. Accurate statistics on the worldwide utilization of all mechanical support for cardiogenic shock are not known. However, estimates on the use of intra-aortic counterpulsation for patients in shock after AMI suggest a rate of use in only 22% of eligible patients. The reasons for the apparent underutilization of this readily available modality are not clear. Accordingly, the indications, benefits, and limitations of mechanical cardiac support are outlined in this chapter.

Historical Background

The evolution of mechanical cardiac support dates back to the early 1950s when Gibbon developed the prototype cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) apparatus. In the years following, Lillehei, Kirklin, and others applied the heart-lung machine to facilitate open-heart surgery; their pioneering work and early observations led directly to the development of modern mechanical cardiac support systems. These surgeons recognized that some patients had improved outcomes after surgery if they were weaned slowly rather than abruptly from CPB support. Their initial publications introduced the concept that left ventricular (LV) decompression and myocardial rest could afford enhanced cardiac recovery after the insult of open-heart surgery. Clinical use of extracorporeal CPB for heart surgery became widespread in the early 1960s. Simultaneously, several groups of investigators were testing means of mechanical cardiac assistance for use outside the operating room for support of patients in cardiogenic shock. The current modes of mechanical support are derivations of those originally developed and include aortic counterpulsation, continuous flow pumps with or without an oxygenator, and pulsatile pumps.

History of Aortic Counterpulsation

The concept of arterial counterpulsation was introduced in 1961 by Clauss and coworkers and involved use of an external “ventricular” chamber that filled with blood from a catheter in the iliac artery and was subsequently compressed by a piston. Compression of the “ventricle” was synchronized to either the QRS complex of an electrocardiogram (ECG) or the impulse of a pacemaker, so that a counter pulse of blood was delivered into the arterial system during diastole. It was demonstrated in dogs that cardiac stroke work and LV end-systolic pressures could be substantially reduced with the use of a counterpulsation into the aorta. The following year, Moulopaulus and associates adapted the model to create an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) that could provide a similar counterpulsation without the need for blood reservoirs. The investigators used a balloon that was rapidly inflated and deflated with carbon dioxide during native diastole. The IABP was subsequently adapted and described for clinical use by Kantrowitz and colleagues in 1968.

The original polyurethane balloon measured 1.8 cm in diameter by 14.8 cm in length when inflated (helium was used because its low density allows rapid delivery to and from the balloon) and displaced 32 mL of blood. There is little difference in the modern IABP and that originally described, other than the availability of different-sized balloons (30- to 50-mL balloons) and subtle differences in the materials used to make the catheters. The extracorporeal components of the IABP now include an electronically controlled pump with a solenoid valve in continuity with a pressurized helium source. The valve controls the flow of helium into and out of the balloon at intervals timed to either pressure changes on an arterial transducer, ECG signals (i.e., the QRS complex), or a ventricular pacer signal. This timing of balloon inflation and deflation is critical to attain optimal physiologic benefit of the cardiac support.

The physiologic rationale for the efficacy of the IABP is that balloon deflation provides a rapid, synchronized reduction in impedance (afterload) during isovolemic LV contraction. This is followed by a rapid, synchronized increase in aortic pressure during isovolemic LV relaxation (diastolic augmentation) caused by balloon inflation. In combination, these events achieve two important goals. First, LV systolic unloading directly reduces stroke work, which in turn reduces myocardial oxygen consumption during the cardiac cycle. Second, diastolic augmentation raises arterial blood pressure and provides better coronary arterial perfusion during diastole, yielding increased oxygen delivery to the myocardium. The IABP does not directly move or redistribute blood flow; however, peak diastolic coronary flow velocity can be increased as much as 87% with IABP augmentation and peak diastolic flow velocity by as much as 117%. Since introduction into clinical use in 1968, the IABP has remained an important adjunct to supporting patients in cardiogenic shock. Myocardial recovery is promoted by the reduction of cardiac work and the simultaneous increase in myocardial oxygen supply. However, therapeutic success is dependent on the patient having a minimum degree of LV function that, in combination with IABP support, facilitates an adequate cardiac output to sustain end-organ function. When this minimal cardiac output is not met, alternative mechanical cardiac assistance must be considered.

History of Mechanical Assist Devices

The need for effective mechanical cardiac assist devices became apparent in the 1950s during the development of CPB for open-heart surgery. Initial attempts with prolonged postoperative CPB demonstrated that the bypass circuit was damaging to both end-organ function and blood constituents after several hours of use. The first attempt at isolated extracorporeal LV support was with a simple roller pump in 1962. Subsequently, femoral venous-to-femoral arterial CPB was successfully used by Spencer and colleagues in four patients with postcardiotomy cardiac failure.

Simultaneous to Spencer and colleagues' work with extracorporeal systems, DeBakey designed the first intracorporeal LV assist device (LVAD), the DeBakey blood pump. This device consisted of a Dacron-reinforced silicone rubber tube with an inner chamber of blood from the left atrium that was connected to the descending thoracic aorta. Pressurized air was instilled into the outer chamber by an external pneumatic controller to compress the inner blood chamber, timed to the R wave of the QRS complex. Blood flow was directed from the left atrium to the descending aorta with the use of ball valves at both the inflow and outflow ends of the device. The DeBakey blood pump was first used in a patient who died 4 days postoperatively of neurologic complications. A remodeled extracorporeal version was subsequently used for postcardiotomy failure in a 37-year-old woman after aortic and mitral valve replacements. The device was needed for 10 days, but the patient survived.

By 1972, investigators at the Texas Heart Institute had developed a pneumatically driven LVAD designed to be implanted in the abdomen. This device had a blood chamber compressed by pulses of air delivered into the pump by a percutaneous driveline. Modern devices have chamber compression that is electrically powered via percutaneous drivelines. Paracorporeal, pneumatically driven devices were a parallel development. Paramount to the evolution of these devices was the sponsorship of the Artificial Heart Program of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which was chartered in 1964.

By the 1960s, continuous flow, as compared to pulsatile, pumps were under development. Over the subsequent 15 years, centrifugal pumps were perfected and introduced into clinical use. These pumps work on the principle of a forced, constrained vortex devised from three magnetic cones. They have been shown to be useful in a variety of clinical settings where short-term mechanical support is needed and an IABP is inadequate. Several types of small, axial-flow or rotary pumps have also been developed, including some that allow for percutaneous deployment. These are generally constructed of a magnetically suspended impeller that rotates at extremely fast rates (25,000 to 35,000 rpm). The axial rotary pump technology has some potential advantages over pulsatile devices; they are quite small with few moving parts and do not require a compliance chamber. The latest generation of rotary pump technology utilizes fully magnetically levitated rotors that completely eliminate the need for seals or bearings. This technology reduces the risk of damage to blood elements and may lead to lower rates of thromboembolism.

Current Mechanical Support Devices

Counterpulsation/Intra-aortic Balloon Pump

Indications

The absolute indications for IABP placement include cardiogenic shock, uncontrolled angina pectoris, acute postinfarction ventricular septal defect or mitral regurgitation, and postcardiotomy left-sided heart failure with low cardiac output. In these settings, IABP should be considered a primary therapy that should not be delayed until noncardiac injury is clinically evident. It is important to recognize that blood pressure alone is not an adequate indication of hemodynamic or cardiac stability. Limb perfusion, renal function, mental status, and even gastrointestinal function need to be considered in the assessment of adequate resuscitation and homeostasis. Additional measurable indices include arterial (Sa o 2 ) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (Sv o 2 ), acid-base status, urine output, and body temperature. A multivariate analysis of data accrued from 391 postcardiotomy patients requiring IABP demonstrated that epinephrine requirements greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min, a left atrial pressure greater than 15 mm Hg, urine output less than 100 mL/h, and Sv o 2 less than 60% correlated with mortality. These criteria were used to help predict mortality and the need for subsequent mechanical support.

Other relative indications for IABP use include (1) high-risk, catheter-based interventional procedures such as left main coronary artery angioplasty, (2) after unsuccessful attempts at catheter-based intervention in patients with poorly controlled ventricular arrhythmias, and (3) concomitant poor LV function, and (4) in settings of persistent stunned, ischemic myocardium. These are all circumstances in which reduction of LV systolic wall tension and oxygen consumption by the IABP might enhance myocardial recovery after intervention. Conversely, the use of an IABP had no impact on mortality in a population of patients without hemodynamic instability undergoing high-risk angioplasty randomized in a prospective trial reported in 1997. More recently, the Benchmark Counterpulsation Outcomes Registry of IABP use in 22,663 patients from 250 hospitals worldwide demonstrated that cardiogenic shock and high-risk angioplasty were the most common indications for utilization of the device. Table 82-1-1 depicts a further characterization of the Benchmark report with respect to indications for use of the IABP and subsequent interventions. Nevertheless, despite the widespread use of the IABP in over 150,000 patients worldwide each year, no prospective randomized trial has ever demonstrated a survival benefit with IABP use in the patient population undergoing high-risk catheter intervention. In contrast, the SHOCK trial showed that early revascularization of patients with coronary artery disease and shock after an AMI, often facilitated by IABP use (86%), yielded a lower 6-month mortality rate (50%) than with medical therapy alone (63%). Additional studies have shown that in patients undergoing urgent or emergent revascularization after an AMI, those supported preoperatively with an IABP had a lower operative mortality than those in whom an IABP was not used (5.3%–8.8% versus 11.8%–28.2%). These data seem to justify a strategy of aggressive IABP use to facilitate early revascularization in the postinfarction patient.

T able 82-1-1
Indications for IABP Use
Modified from Ferguson JJ 3rd, Cohen M, Freedman RJ Jr et al. The current practice of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation: results from the benchmark registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:1456–62.
Indication (%) Total Population (n = 16,909) Diagnostic Catheterization (n = 1576) Catheterization Only & PCI Only (n = 3882) SURGERY No Intervention (n = 1186)
CABG (n = 9179) Non-CABG (n = 1086)
Support and stabilization 20.6 21.4 54.4 9.7 5.0 7.8
Cardiogenic shock 18.8 33.1 23.7 12.3 23.8 29.4
Weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass 16.1 0.4 0.1 24.9 31.4 7.1
Preop: high risk CABG 13.0 4.6 0.2 22.1 6.4 1.9
Refractory unstable angina 12.3 15.3 8.3 15.8 2.2 3.0
Refractory ventricular failure 6.5 9.1 2.5 5.9 15.7 12.7
Mechanical complication due to AMI 5.5 9.8 7.0 4.2 5.2 5.1
Ischemia related to intractable VA 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.6
Cardiac support for high-risk general surgery 0.9 2.1 0.2 0.5 4.3 1.1
Other 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.8 2.5 2.0
Intraoperative pulsatile flow 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.2
Missing indication 3.3 1.8 1.9 1.2 1.5 28.1
AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; VA, ventricular arrhythmias.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here