Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Response and Predictors of Stabilization

Abstract

Objective

To characterize the clinical response and identify predictors of clinical stabilization after intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) support in patients with chronic systolic heart failure in cardiogenic shock prior to implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

Background

Limited data exist regarding the clinical response to IABP in patients with chronic heart failure in cardiogenic shock.

Methods

We identified 54 patients supported with IABP prior to LVAD implantation. Criteria for clinical decompensation after IABP insertion and before LVAD included the need for more advanced temporary support, initiation of mechanical ventilation or dialysis, increase in vasopressors/inotropes, refractory ventricular arrhythmias, or worsening acidosis. The absence of these indicated stabilization.

Results

Clinical decompensation after IABP occurred in 23 (43%) patients. Both patients who decompensated and those who stabilized had similar hemodynamic improvements after IABP support but patients who decompensated required more vasopressors/inotropes. Clinical decompensation after IABP was associated with worse outcomes after LVAD implantation, including a 3-fold longer intensive care unit stay and 5-fold longer time on mechanical ventilation (p<0.01 for both). While baseline characteristics were similar between groups, right and left ventricular cardiac power indices (Cardiac power Index= Cardiac Index × Mean arterial pressure / 451)identified patients who were likely to stabilize (AUC=0.82).

Conclusions

Among patients with chronic systolic heart failure who develop cardiogenic shock, more than half of patients stabilized with IABP support as a bridge to LVAD. Baseline measures of right and left ventricular cardiac power, both measures of work performed for a given flow and pressure, may allow clinicians to identify patients with sufficient contractile reserve who will be likely to stabilize with an IABP versus those who may need more aggressive ventricular support.