Purpose Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed updated to December 2015. Thirteen studies were included of which nine included cardiac arrest patients (n = 3098) and four included patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (n = 235). Data were pooled by a Mantel-Haenzel random effects model and heterogeneity was examined by the I ² statistic. Results In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an absolute increase of 30 days survival of 13 % compared with patients in which ECLS was not used [95 % CI 6–20 %; p < 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) 7.7] and a higher rate of favourable neurological outcome at 30 days (absolute risk difference 14 %; 95 % CI 7–20 %; p < 0.0001; NNT 7.1). Propensity matched analysis, including 5 studies and 438 patients (219 in both groups), showed similar results. In cardiogenic shock, ECLS showed a 33 % higher 30-day survival compared with IABP (95 % CI, 14–52 %; p < 0.001; NNT 13) but no difference when compared with TandemHeart/Impella (−3 %; 95 % CI −21 to 14 %; p = 0.70; NNH 33). Conclusions In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome. In the setting of cardiogenic shock there was an increased survival with ECLS compared with IABP.

Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The role of immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of patients who have been successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest in the absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains uncertain. In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 552 patients who had cardiac arrest without signs of STEMI to undergo immediate coronary angiography or coronary angiography that was delayed until after neurologic recovery. All patients underwent PCI if indicated. The primary end point was survival at 90 days. Secondary end points included survival at 90 days with good cerebral performance or mild or moderate disability, myocardial injury, duration of catecholamine support, markers of shock, recurrence of ventricular tachycardia, duration of mechanical ventilation, major bleeding, occurrence of acute kidney injury, need for renal-replacement therapy, time to target temperature, and neurologic status at discharge from the intensive care unit. At 90 days, 176 of 273 patients (64.5%) in the immediate angiography group and 178 of 265 patients (67.2%) in the delayed angiography group were alive (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 1.27; P=0.51). The median time to target temperature was 5.4 hours in the immediate angiography group and 4.7 hours in the delayed angiography group (ratio of geometric means, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.36). No significant differences between the groups were found in the remaining secondary end points. Among patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and had no signs of STEMI, a strategy of immediate angiography was not found to be better than a strategy of delayed angiography with respect to overall survival at 90 days. (Funded by the Netherlands Heart Institute and others; COACT Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR4973.)

Background: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with use of the Impella device compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS. Methods: Data of patients with AMI-CS treated with the Impella device at European tertiary care hospitals were collected retrospectively. All patients underwent early revascularization and received optimal medical treatment. Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 372 patients were identified and included in this analysis. These patients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. The following baseline criteria were used as matching parameters: age, sex, mechanical ventilation, ejection fraction, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lactate. Primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Results: In total, 237 patients treated with an Impella could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. Baseline parameters were similarly distributed after matching. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (48.5% versus 46.4%, P =0.64). Severe or life-threatening bleeding (8.5% versus 3.0%, P <0.01) and peripheral vascular complications (9.8% versus 3.8%, P =0.01) occurred significantly more often in the Impella group. Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change the results. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of patients with AMI-CS, the use of an Impella device was not associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy. To further evaluate this, a large randomized trial is warranted to determine the effect of the Impella device on outcome in patients with AMI-CS. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03313687.

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with cardiogenic shock is strongly recommended (class IB) in the current guidelines. We performed meta-analyses to evaluate the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. Medical literature databases were scrutinized to identify randomized trials comparing IABP with no IABP in STEMI. In absence of randomized trials, cohort studies of IABP in STEMI with cardiogenic shock were identified. Two separate meta-analyses were performed respectively. The first meta-analysis included seven randomized trials (n = 1009) of STEMI. IABP showed neither a 30-day survival benefit nor improved left ventricular ejection fraction, while being associated with significantly higher stroke and bleeding rates. The second meta-analysis included nine cohorts of STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (n = 10529). In patients treated with thrombolysis, IABP was associated with an 18% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16–20%; P < 0.0001] decrease in 30 day mortality, albeit with significantly higher revascularization rates compared to patients without support. Contrariwise, in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, IABP was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 3–10%; P < 0.0008) increase in 30 day mortality. The pooled randomized data do not support IABP in patients with high-risk STEMI. The meta-analysis of cohort studies in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock supported IABP therapy adjunctive to thrombolysis. In contrast, the observational data did not support IABP therapy adjunctive to primary PCI. All available observational data concerning IABP therapy in the setting of cardiogenic shock is importantly hampered by bias and confounding. There is insufficient evidence endorsing the current guideline recommendation for the use of IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. Our meta-analyses challenge the current guideline recommendations.

Outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have improved because of advancements in equipment and techniques. With global collaboration and knowledge sharing, we have identified 7 common principles that are widely accepted as best practices for CTO-PCI. 1. Ischemic symptom improvement is the primary indication for CTO-PCI. 2. Dual coronary angiography and in-depth and structured review of the angiogram (and, if available, coronary computed tomography angiography) are key for planning and safely performing CTO-PCI. 3. Use of a microcatheter is essential for optimal guidewire manipulation and exchanges. 4. Antegrade wiring, antegrade dissection and reentry, and the retrograde approach are all complementary and necessary crossing strategies. Antegrade wiring is the most common initial technique, whereas retrograde and antegrade dissection and reentry are often required for more complex CTOs. 5. If the initially selected crossing strategy fails, efficient change to an alternative crossing technique increases the likelihood of eventual PCI success, shortens procedure time, and lowers radiation and contrast use. 6. Specific CTO-PCI expertise and volume and the availability of specialized equipment will increase the likelihood of crossing success and facilitate prevention and management of complications, such as perforation. 7. Meticulous attention to lesion preparation and stenting technique, often requiring intracoronary imaging, is required to ensure optimum stent expansion and minimize the risk of short- and long-term adverse events. These principles have been widely adopted by experienced CTO-PCI operators and centers currently achieving high success and acceptable complication rates. Outcomes are less optimal at less experienced centers, highlighting the need for broader adoption of the aforementioned 7 guiding principles along with the development of additional simple and safe CTO crossing and revascularization strategies through ongoing research, education, and training.