Download PDF
Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2022; 147(18): 1182-1187
DOI: 10.1055/a-1726-1252
Dossier

Mechanische Kreislaufunterstützung bei infarktbedingtem kardiogenem Schock

Mechanical Assist Devices in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Myocardial Infarction
Carlo-Federico Fichera
,
Georg Fürnau
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Der kardiogene Schock ist eine der Haupt-Todesursachen von Patienten mit einem akuten Koronarsyndrom (ACS). Mechanische Unterstützungssysteme werden zur Verbesserung der Hämodynamik eingesetzt, aber trotz des vielfältigen Einsatzes dieser Systeme gibt es wenig randomisierte Daten zur Effektivität und zum idealen Zeitpunkt der Implantation. Dieser Beitrag verschafft einen Überblick über die derzeitige Situation und zeigt die offenen Fragen auf.

Abstract

In acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock is still one of the most feared complications. Although medical and interventional treatment of myocardial infarction improved significantly over the last decades mortality of cardiogenic shock patients remains on unacceptable high levels with 30-day mortality rates of 40–50 %. To date only an early revascularization of the culprit infarct lesion is the only intervention with proven survival benefit for patients. Active mechanical assist devices were introduced more than two decades ago to support left ventricular function as addition to medical treatment with inotropes and vasopressors. Yet, to date only insufficient date exists for these devices in cardiogenic shock patients and therefore no general recommendation can be given. This viewpoint gives an overview about the most used devices. The different mechanism of left ventricular support will be explained, and the current evidence discussed. Furthermore, ongoing randomized controlled trials are highlighted.

Schlüsselwörter

Schock - Myokardinfarkt - mechanische Unterstützungssysteme - linksventrikuläre Unterstützungssysteme

Key words

cardiogenic shock - myocardial infarction - mechanical assist devices - left ventricular support


Publication History

Article published online:
07 September 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 De Luca L, Olivari Z, Farina A. et al. Temporal trends in the epidemiology, management, and outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes. Eur J Heart Fail 2015; 17: 1124-1132 DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.339.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hunziker L, Radovanovic D, Jeger R. et al. Twenty-Year Trends in the Incidence and Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock in AMIS Plus Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: e007293 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007293.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS. et al. Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States. Journal of the American Heart Association 2014; 3: e000590 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000590.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Tabone X. et al. Improved outcome of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a report from the USIK 1995, USIC 2000, and FAST-MI French nationwide registries. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2535-2543 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs264.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Backhaus T, Fach A, Schmucker J. et al. Management and predictors of outcome in unselected patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Bremen STEMI Registry. Clin Res Cardiol 2018; 107: 371-379 DOI: 10.1007/s00392-017-1192-0.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR. et al. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 618-626 DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00005.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rathod KS, Koganti S, Iqbal MB. et al. Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group. European heart journal Acute cardiovascular care 2018; 7: 16-27 DOI: 10.1177/2048872617741735.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S. et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions: official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions 2019; 94: 29-37 DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28329.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Prondzinsky R, Unverzagt S, Russ M. et al. Hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP shock trial. Shock 2012; 37: 378-384 DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0b013e31824a67af.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ. et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1287-1296 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208410.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Karami M, Eriksen E, Ouweneel DM. et al. Long-term 5-year outcome of the randomized IMPRESS in severe shock trial: percutaneous mechanical circulatory support vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2021; 10: 1009-1015 DOI: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuab060.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moustafa A, Khan MS, Saad M. et al. Impella Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis. Cardiovascular revascularization medicine: including molecular interventions 2022; 34: 25-31 DOI: 10.1016/j.carrev.2021.01.028.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lüsebrink E, Orban M, Kupka D. et al. Prevention and treatment of pulmonary congestion in patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 3753-3761 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa547.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J. et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive care medicine 2016; 42: 1922-1934 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yannopoulos D, Bartos JA, Raveendran G. et al. Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation Cardiac Arrest. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 1109-1117 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.06.059.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Becher PM, Schrage B, Sinning CR. et al. Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiopulmonary Support. Circulation 2018; 138: 2298-2300 DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036691.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ali JM, Abu-Omar Y. Complications associated with mechanical circulatory support. Ann Transl Med 2020; 8: 835 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.152.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Udesen NJ, Moller JE, Lindholm MG. et al. Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. American heart journal 2019; 214: 60-68 DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.04.019.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Thiele H, Freund A, Gimenez MR. et al. Extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock – Design and rationale of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. American heart journal 2021; 234: 1-11 DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2021.01.002.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Banning AS, Adriaenssens T, Berry C. et al. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, open-label EURO SHOCK trial. EuroIntervention 2021; 16: e1227-e1236 DOI: 10.4244/eij-d-20-01076.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar