Open AccessIntra‐aortic balloon pump impacts the regional haemodynamics of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with femoro‐femoral veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Author(s) -
Xu Bo,
Li Chenglong,
Cai Tong,
Cui Yongchao,
Du Zhongtao,
Fan Qiushi,
Guo Dong,
Jiang Chunjing,
Xing Zhichen,
Xin Meng,
Wang Pengcheng,
Wang Liangshan,
Yang Feng,
Jia Ming,
Wang Hong,
Hou Xiaotong
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
esc heart failure
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.787
H-Index - 25
ISSN - 2055-5822
DOI - 10.1002/ehf2.13981
Subject(s) - cardiogenic shock , medicine , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation , intra aortic balloon pump , cardiology , femoral artery , cardiac output , hemodynamics , intensive care unit , ejection fraction , shock (circulatory) , intra aortic balloon pumping , heart failure , myocardial infarction
Aims To investigate the impact of intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) on the regional haemodynamics of patients with severe cardiogenic shock undergoing femoro‐femoral veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO). Methods and results From July 2017 to April 2018, a total of 39 adult patients with cardiogenic shock receiving both IABP and ECMO for circulatory support were enrolled consecutively in a university‐affiliated cardiac surgery intensive care unit. The blood flow rates (BFRs) of the bilateral femoral artery (IABP side: iFA, ECMO side: eFA) and carotid artery (left: LCA, right: RCA) and the velocity time integral (VTI) of aortic root were assessed by ultrasonography and compared when IABP was on and off. Seventeen of 39 (43.6%) patients survived to discharge, and 29 (74.4%) survived on ECMO. A total of 172 pairs of data (IABP on and off) were collected in this study, measured on the median of 2.0 (1.0, 4.5) days after patients received VA‐ECMO. The BFR on both sides of FA (iFA: 176.4 ± 104.5 vs. 152.2 ± 139.8 mL/min, P < 0.01; eFA: 299.3 ± 279.9 vs. 242.4 ± 258.8 mL/min, P < 0.01) and the aortic VTI (10.1 ± 4.4 vs. 8.5 ± 4.4 cm, P < 0.01) decreased significantly when turning the IABP off, while the BFR on both sides of CA remained unchanged (LCA: 555.7 ± 326.9 vs. 578.6 ± 328.0 mL/min, P = 0.27; RCA: 550.0 ± 331.1 vs. 533.0 ± 303.5 mL/min, P = 0.30). The LCA BFR dramatically increased after turning the IABP off (296.8 ± 129.7 vs. 401.4 ± 278.1 mL/min, P = 0.02) in patients with cardiac stunning (defined as pulse pressure ≤ 5 mmHg). However, there was no significant difference in LCA BFR between IABP‐On and IABD‐Off (359.6 ± 105.4 mL/min vs. 389.6 ± 139.3 mL/min, P = 0.31) in patients with cardiac stunning receiving a higher ECMO blood flow (> 3.5 L/min). Conclusions Concomitant IABP used in patients undergoing femoro‐femoral VA‐ECMO was associated with increased aortic VTI and BFR in bilateral FA. The change in CA BFR depended on cardiac function. A decreased LCA BFR was observed in patients with cardiac stunning when IABP was turned on, which might be compensated by a higher ECMO blood flow. Further study is needed to confirm the relationship between BFR and extremities and neurological complications.