Trials on intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in cardiogenic shock related to acute myocardial infarction have shown disappointing results. The role of IABP in cardiogenic shock treatment remains unclear, and new (potentially more potent) mechanical circulatory supports with arguably larger device profile are emerging. A reappraisal of the physiological premises of intra-aortic counterpulsation may underpin the rationale to maintain IABP as a valuable therapeutic option for patients with acute decompensated heart failure and tissue hypoperfusion. Several pathophysiological features differ between myocardial infarction- and acute decompensated heart failure–related hypoperfusion, encompassing cardiogenic shock severity, filling status, systemic vascular resistances rise, and adaptation to chronic (if preexisting) left ventricular dysfunction. IABP combines a more substantial effect on left ventricular afterload with a modest increase in cardiac output and would therefore be most suitable in clinical scenarios characterized by a disproportionate increase in afterload without profound hemodynamic compromise. The acute decompensated heart failure syndrome is characterized by exquisite afterload-sensitivity of cardiac output and may be an ideal setting for counterpulsation. Several hemodynamic variables have been shown to predict response to IABP within this scenario, potentially guiding appropriate patient selection. Finally, acute decompensated heart failure with hypoperfusion may frequently represent an end stage in the heart failure history: IABP may provide sufficient hemodynamic support and prompt end-organ function recovery in view of more definitive heart replacement therapies while preserving ambulation when used with a transaxillary approach.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a fast and radical transformation in social, economic, and healthcare networks. COVID-19 outbreak may thus have profound indirect consequences on clinical presentation and management of patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Aim of this study was to assess clinical features of patients with STEMI during COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This single-center, prospective study from a regional public service healthcare hub in Milan included all consecutive patients with STEMI admitted to our institute from February 21 to April 1, 2020 (during COVID-19 pandemic). These patients were compared with a historical cohort of patients admitted for STEMI during the analogous time period (February 21 to April 1) in 2018 and 2019, in terms of time from symptoms onset to hospital admission, clinical characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes. Results: A total of 26 patients were admitted for STEMI during the study period, and 7 (26.9%) of these patients tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. On admission, medical therapy, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers use, was similar between cohorts. Median (interquartile range) time from symptoms onset to hospital admission was significantly longer in 2020 as compared to the historical cohort (15.0 [2.0–48.0] versus 2.0 [1.0–3.0] hours; P <0.01). A higher proportion of patients presenting with late presentation STEMI was observed in 2020 compared with the historical cohort (50.0% versus 4.8%; P <0.01). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention resulted indicated in 80.8% of patients in 2020 compared with 100% in the historical cohort ( P =0.06). In-hospital death, thromboembolism, mechanical ventilation, or hemodynamic decompensation needing inotropic or mechanical support were similar between years. Conclusions: These preliminary results from a cardiovascular regional public service healthcare hub demonstrate a significantly longer time from symptoms onset to hospital admission among patients with STEMI during COVID-19 pandemic compared with the same time period in the previous 2 years.