Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (CS) are often treated with intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP), even though the evidence to support this is limited. We determined whether IABP as an addition to PCI-centered therapy ameliorates multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (MODS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS. A prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial recruiting patients between March 2003 and June 2004 (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00469248). Tertiary care university hospital. Forty-five consecutive patients with AMI and CS undergoing PCI were randomized to treatment with or without IABP. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores (primary outcome measure), hemodynamic values, inflammatory markers, and plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels (secondary outcomes) were collected over 4 days from randomization. The prospective hypothesis was that adding IABP therapy to “standard care” would improve CS-triggered MODS. The addition of IABP to standard therapy did not result in a significant improvement in MODS (measured by serial APACHE II scoring over 4 days). IABP use had no significant effect on cardiac index or systemic inflammatory activation, although BNP levels were significantly lower in IABP-treated patients. Initial and serial APACHE II scoring correlated with mortality better than cardiac index, systemic inflammatory state, and BNP levels in this group of patients. Nonsurvivors had significantly higher initial APACHE II scores (29.9 ± 2.88) than survivors (18.1 ± 1.66, p < .05). Nevertheless, discrepancies among patients within the groups cannot be ruled out and might interfere with our results. In this randomized trial addressing addition of IABP in CS patients, mechanical support was associated only with modest effects on reduction of APACHE II score as a marker of severity of disease, improvement of cardiac index, reduction of inflammatory state, or reduction of BNP biomarker status compared with medical therapy alone. However, the limitations of our present trial preclude any definitive conclusion, but request for a larger prospective, randomized, multicentered trial with mortality as primary end point.

We conducted the IABP Cardiogenic Shock Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00469248) as a prospective, randomized, monocentric clinical trial to determine the hemodynamic effects of additional intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) treatment and its effects on severity of disease in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation is recommended in patients with CS complicating myocardial infarction. However, there are only limited randomized controlled trial data available supporting the efficacy of IABP following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and its impact on hemodynamic parameters in patients with CS. Percutaneous coronary intervention of infarct-related artery was performed in 40 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS, within 12 h of onset of hemodynamic instability. Serial hemodynamic parameters were determined over the next 4 days and compared in patients receiving medical treatment alone with those treated with additional intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. There were no significant differences among severity of disease (i.e., Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score) initially and no differences among both groups for disease improvement. We observed significant temporal improvements of cardiac output (4.8 ± 0.5 to 6.0 ± 0.5 L/min), systemic vascular resistance (926 ± 73 to 769 ± 101 dyn · s(-1) · cm(-5)), and the prognosis-validated cardiac power output (0.78 ± 0.06 to 1.01 ± 0.2 W) within the IABP group. However, there were no significant differences between the IABP group and the medical-alone group. Additional IABP treatment did not result in a significant hemodynamic improvement compared with medical therapy alone in a randomized prospective trial in patients with CS following PCI. Therefore, the use and recommendation for IABP treatment in CS remain unclear.

Levosimendan improves left ventricular hemodynamic function in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, its impact on right ventricular performance has not been determined. We compared the hemodynamic effects of levosimendan on left and right ventricular function in patients with intractable cardiogenic shock following myocardial infarction. Observational hemodynamic study. Tertiary care center university hospital. Fifty-six patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to myocardial infarction were treated with percutaneous revascularization (including intra-aortic balloon pump when appropriate) and commenced on conventional inotropic therapy. Twenty-five consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction who had not improved sufficiently with conventional therapy (including dobutamine and norepinephrine) received levosimendan (as a bolus of 12 μg/kg per minute for 10 mins then 0.1 μg/kg per minute – 0.2 μg/kg per minute) as “bail-out” therapy for 24 hrs while invasive hemodynamic parameters were recorded. Levosimendan therapy was associated with a significant increase in cardiac index from 2.1 ± 0.1 to 3.0 ± 0.2 L·min·m2 (p < .01). In addition, levosimendan enhanced right ventricular cardiac power index (0.14 ± 0.19 to 0.18W ± 0.12, p < .001), while pulmonary vascular resistance fell from 227.7 ± 94.5 to 178.1 ± 62.3 dyne × s × cm−5 (p = .002). No significant change in central venous pressure or mean pulmonary artery pressure was observed. The observed hemodynamic improvement was sustained after the levosimendan infusion was stopped. Levosimendan infusion for cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction improved hemodynamic parameters of right ventricular performance. Furthermore, we describe the use of right ventricular cardiac power index as a hemodynamic parameter of right ventricular performance.