Advertisement
Canadian Journal of Cardiology

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Post–Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Author Footnotes
    ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Hamza Ouazani Chahdi
    Footnotes
    ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Léa Berbach
    Footnotes
    ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Laurie-Anne Boivin-Proulx
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Ali Hillani
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Nicolas Noiseux
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada

    CHUM Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Alexis Matteau
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada

    CHUM Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Samer Mansour
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada

    CHUM Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • François Gobeil
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Bénédicte Nauche
    Affiliations
    CHUM Library, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • E. Marc Jolicoeur
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada

    CHUM Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Brian J. Potter
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Dr Brian J. Potter, Cardiology and Interventional Cardiology, Carrefour de l’Innovation et Évaluation en Santé, Centre de Recherche du CHUM, Pavillon S, S03-334, 850, rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec H2X 0A9, Canada. Tel.: +1-514-890-8000 ext 15473; fax: +1-514-412-7212.
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Cardiovascular Centre, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Québec, Canada

    CHUM Research Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    ‡ These authors contributed equally to this work.

      Abstract

      Background

      Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicates 5%-10% of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is the leading cause of early mortality. It remains unclear whether percutaneous mechanical support (pMCS) devices improve post-AMI CS outcome.

      Methods

      A systematic review of original studies comparing the effect of pMCS on AMI-CS mortality was conducted with the use of Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases.

      Results

      Of 8672 records, 50 were retained for quantitative analysis. Four additional references were added from other sources. Four references reported a significant mortality reduction with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with failed primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or managed with thrombolysis. Meta-analyses showed no advantage of Impella over conventional therapy (pooled OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20-1.46; I2 = 0.85) and increased mortality compared with IABP (pooled OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.08-1.62; I2 = 0.85). No study reported a mortality advantage for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) over conventional therapy, IABP, or Impella support. Early mortality might be improved with the addition of IABP or Impella to ECMO. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥ 3 bleeding was increased with every pMCS strategy.

      Conclusions

      The current evidence is of poor to moderate quality, with only 1 in 5 included articles reporting randomised data and several reporting unadjusted outcomes. Yet, there is some evidence to favour IABP use in the setting of thrombolysis or with failed pPCI, and adding IABP or Impella should be considered for patients requiring ECMO.

      Résumé

      Contexte

      Le choc cardiogénique (CC) entraîne une complication de 5 à 10 % des infarctus aigus du myocarde (IAM) et constitue la principale cause de mortalité précoce. On ne sait toujours pas si les dispositifs d'assistance mécanique percutanée (AMp) améliorent l'issue du CC post-IAM (CC-IAM).

      Méthodes

      Une revue systématique des études originales comparant l'effet de l'AMp sur la mortalité CC-IAM a été menée en utilisant les bases de données Medline, Embase, Google Scholar et la Cochrane Library.

      Résultats

      Sur 8 672 références, 50 ont été retenues pour l'analyse quantitative. Quatre références supplémentaires ont été ajoutées à partir d'autres sources. Quatre références ont rapporté une réduction significative de la mortalité avec le ballon de contre-pulsion intra-aortique (CPIA) chez les patients dont l'intervention coronarienne percutanée primaire (ICPp) a échoué ou qui ont été traités par thrombolyse. Les méta-analyses n'ont montré aucun avantage de l'Impella par rapport au traitement conventionnel (rapport des cotes [RC] groupé 0,55, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % 0,20-1,46; I2 = 0,85) et une mortalité accrue par rapport à la CPIA (RC groupé 1,32; IC à 95 % 1,08-1,62; I2 = 0,85). Aucune étude n'a rapporté un avantage en termes de mortalité pour l'oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle (ECMO) par rapport au traitement conventionnel, à la CPIA ou à l'Impella. La mortalité précoce pourrait être améliorée par l'ajout de la CPIA ou de l'Impella à l'ECMO. Les niveaux d'hémorragie ≥ 3, selon le BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium), étaient augmentés avec chaque stratégie par dispositifs d'AMp.

      Conclusions

      Les évidences actuelles sont de qualité médiocre à modérée, avec seulement un article inclus sur cinq rapportant des données randomisées et plusieurs rapportant des résultats non ajustés. Pourtant, il existe des évidences qui plaident en faveur de l'utilisation de la CPIA dans le cadre d'une thrombolyse ou en cas d'échec de l'ICPp, et l'apport de la CPIA ou de l'Impella devrait être envisagé pour les patients nécessitant une ECMO.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Canadian Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Vahdatpour C.
        • Collins D.
        • Goldberg S.
        Cardiogenic shock.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8e011991
        • van Diepen S.
        • Katz J.N.
        • Albert N.M.
        • et al.
        Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2017; 136: e232-e268
        • Hochman J.S.
        Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: expanding the paradigm.
        Circulation. 2003; 107: 2998-3002
        • Samsky M.D.
        • Morrow D.A.
        • Proudfoot A.G.
        • et al.
        Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a review.
        JAMA. 2021; 326: 1840-1850
        • Wernly J.A.
        Ischemia, reperfusion, and the role of surgery in the treatment of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction: an interpretative review.
        J Surg Res. 2004; 117: 6-21
        • O’Brien C.
        • Beaubien-Souligny W.
        • Amsallem M.
        • Denault A.
        • Haddad F.
        Cardiogenic shock: reflections at the crossroad between perfusion, tissue hypoxia, mitochondrial function.
        Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36: 184-196
        • Mandawat A.
        • Rao S.V.
        Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10
        • van Diepen S.
        • Lim M.J.
        • Mebazaa A.
        What is the role of medical therapy in cardiogenic shock in the era of mechanical circulatory support?.
        Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36: 151-153
        • Page M.J.
        • McKenzie J.E.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
        BMJ. 2021; 372: n71
        • Hicks K.A.
        • Stockbridge N.L.
        • Targum S.L.
        • Temple R.J.
        Bleeding academic research consortium consensus report: the food and drug administration perspective.
        Circulation. 2011; 123: 2664-2665
        • Waksman R.
        • Weiss A.T.
        • Gotsman M.S.
        • Hasin Y.
        Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation improves survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
        Eur Heart J. 1993; 14: 71-74
        • Anderson R.D.
        • Ohman E.M.
        • Holmes Jr., D.R.
        • et al.
        Use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock: observations from the GUSTO-I study. Global Utilisation of Streptokinase and TPA for Occluded Coronary Arteries.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 30: 708-715
        • Kovack P.J.
        • Rasak M.A.
        • Bates E.R.
        • Ohman E.M.
        • Stomel R.J.
        Thrombolysis plus aortic counterpulsation: improved survival in patients who present to community hospitals with cardiogenic shock.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 29: 1454-1458
        • Sanborn T.A.
        • Sleeper L.A.
        • Bates E.R.
        • et al.
        Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. Should We Emergently Revascularise Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock?.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1123-1129
        • Barron H.V.
        • Every N.R.
        • Parsons L.S.
        • et al.
        Investigators in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2.
        Am Heart J. 2001; 141: 933-939
        • Prondzinsky R.
        • Lemm H.
        • Swyter M.
        • et al.
        Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomised IABP shock trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome.
        Crit Care Med. 2010; 38: 152-160
        • Gu J.
        • Hu W.
        • Xiao H.
        • et al.
        Intra-aortic balloon pump improves clinical prognosis and attenuates C-reactive protein level in acute STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        Cardiology. 2010; 117: 75-80
        • Zeymer U.
        • Bauer T.
        • Hamm C.
        • et al.
        Use and impact of intra-aortic balloon pump on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the Euro Heart Survey on PCI.
        EuroIntervention. 2011; 7: 437-441
        • Sjauw K.D.
        • Engström A.E.
        • Vis M.M.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and timing of intra-aortic counterpulsation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        Neth Heart J. 2012; 20: 402-409
        • Zeymer U.
        • Hochadel M.
        • Hauptmann K.E.
        • et al.
        Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the ALKK-PCI registry.
        Clin Res Cardiol. 2013; 102: 223-227
        • Dziewierz A.
        • Siudak Z.
        • Rakowski T.
        • et al.
        Impact of intra-aortic balloon pump on long-term mortality of unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2014; 10: 175-180
        • Kunadian V.
        • Qiu W.
        • Ludman P.
        • et al.
        • National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research
        Outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock following percutaneous coronary intervention in the contemporary era: an analysis from the BCIS database (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society).
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7: 1374-1385
        • Thiele H.
        • Zeymer U.
        • Neumann F.-J.
        • et al.
        • IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators
        Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 367: 1287-1296
        • Iqbal M.B.
        • Robinson S.D.
        • Ding L.
        • et al.
        • British Columbia Cardiac Registry Investigators
        Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: insights from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0148931
        • Mao C.T.
        • Wang J.L.
        • Chen D.Y.
        • et al.
        Benefits of intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction patients in severe cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary revascularisation.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0160070
        • Timóteo A.T.
        • Nogueira M.A.
        • Rosa S.A.
        • Belo A.
        • Ferreira R.C.
        • ProACS Investigators
        Role of intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: evidence from the Portuguese Nationwide Registry.
        Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2016; 5: 23-31
        • Hawranek M.
        • Gierlotka M.
        • Pres D.
        • Zembala M.
        • Gąsior M.
        Nonroutine use of intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction with successful and unsuccessful primary percutaneous coronary intervention.
        JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11: 1885-1893
        • Helgestad O.K.L.
        • Josiassen J.
        • Hassager C.
        • et al.
        Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock.
        Open Heart. 2020; 7e001214
        • Dhruva S.S.
        • Ross J.S.
        • Mortazavi B.J.
        • et al.
        Association of use of an intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device vs intra-aortic balloon pump with in-hospital mortality and major bleeding among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        JAMA. 2020; 323: 734-745
        • Wang W.
        • Yang F.
        • Lin X.
        • et al.
        The preference, effect, and prognosis of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock patients: a retrospective cohort study.
        Biomed Res Int. 2021; 20216656926
        • Choi K.H.
        • Yang J.H.
        • Park T.K.
        • et al.
        Differential prognostic implications of vasoactive inotropic score for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to use of mechanical circulatory support.
        Crit Care Med. 2021; 49: 770-780
        • Chu S.
        • Sun P.
        • Zhang Y.
        • et al.
        Intra-aortic balloon pump on in-hospital outcomes of cardiogenic shock: findings from a nationwide registry, China.
        ESC Heart Fail. 2021; 8: 3286-3294
        • Lan W.R.L.
        • Lin S.-I.
        • Liao F.-C.
        • Lee Y.-H.
        • Tsai C.-T.
        The impact of intra-aortic balloon pump in elderly with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous cardiovascular intervention: benefits and risks?.
        Int J Gerontol. 2021; 15: 195-200
        • Karatolios K.
        • Chatzis G.
        • Markus B.
        • et al.
        Impella support compared to medical treatment for post–cardiac arrest shock after out of hospital cardiac arrest.
        Resuscitation. 2018; 126: 104-110
        • Schrage B.
        • Ibrahim K.
        • Loehn T.
        • et al.
        Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        Circulation. 2019; 139: 1249-1258
        • Scherer C.
        • Lüsebrink E.
        • Kupka D.
        • et al.
        Long-term clinical outcome of cardiogenic shock patients undergoing Impella CP treatment vs standard of care.
        J Clin Med. 2020; 9: 3803
        • Brunner S.
        • Guenther S.P.W.
        • Lackermair K.
        • et al.
        Extracorporeal life support in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73: 2355-2357
        • Thiele H.
        • Sick P.
        • Boudriot E.
        • et al.
        Randomised comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularised acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 1276-1283
        • Khera R.
        • Cram P.
        • Vaughan-Sarrazin M.
        • Horwitz P.A.
        • Girotra S.
        Use of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States.
        Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117: 10-16
        • Ouweneel D.M.
        • Eriksen E.
        • Sjauw K.D.
        • et al.
        Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69: 278-287
        • Pieri M.
        • Sorrentino T.
        • Oppizzi M.
        • et al.
        The role of different mechanical circulatory support devices and their timing of implantation on myocardial damage and mid-term recovery in acute myocardial infarction related cardiogenic shock.
        J Interv Cardiol. 2018; 31: 717-724
        • Alushi B.
        • Douedari A.
        • Froehlig G.
        • et al.
        Impella versus IABP in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        Open Heart. 2019; 6e000987
        • Vallabhajosyula S.
        • Subramaniam A.V.
        • Murphree Jr., D.H.
        • et al.
        Complications from percutaneous-left ventricular assist devices versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock.
        PLoS One. 2020; 15e0238046
        • Thakkar S.
        • Patel H.P.
        • Kumar A.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of Impella compared with intra-aortic balloon pump in ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        American Heart Journal Plus: Cardiology Research and Practice. 2021; 12100067
        • Vojjini R.
        • Patlolla S.H.
        • Cheungpasitporn W.
        • et al.
        Racial disparities in the utilisation and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock.
        J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 1459
        • Kim Y.
        • Shapero K.
        • Ahn S.S.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022; 99: 658-663
        • Lauridsen M.D.
        • Josiassen J.
        • Schmidt M.
        • et al.
        Prognosis of myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock according to preadmission out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Resuscitation. 2021; 162: 135-142
        • Vallabhajosyula S.
        • Dunlay S.M.
        • Barsness G.W.
        • et al.
        Sex disparities in the use and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock.
        CJC Open. 2020; 2: 462-472
        • Aiba T.
        • Nonogi H.
        • Itoh T.
        • et al.
        Appropriate indications for the use of a percutaneous cardiopulmonary support system in cases with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
        Jpn Circ J. 2001; 65: 145-149
        • Tsao N.W.
        • Shih C.M.
        • Yeh J.S.
        • et al.
        Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention may improve survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock.
        J Crit Care. 2012; 27: 530.e1-530.e11
        • Mourad M.
        • Gaudard P.
        • de la Arena P.
        • et al.
        Circulatory support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and/or Impella for cardiogenic shock during myocardial infarction.
        ASAIO J. 2018; 64: 708-714
        • Garan A.R.
        • Takeda K.
        • Salna M.
        • et al.
        Prospective comparison of a percutaneous ventricular assist device and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8e012171
        • Karami M.
        • den Uil C.A.
        • Ouweneel D.M.
        • et al.
        Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO.
        Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020; 9: 164-172
        • Lemor A.
        • Hosseini Dehkordi S.H.
        • Basir M.B.
        • et al.
        Impella versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.
        Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020; 21: 1465-1471
        • Vetrovec G.W.
        • Lim M.J.
        • Needham K.A.
        Cost savings for pVAD compared to ECMO in the management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: an episode-of-care analysis.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 98: 703-710
        • Wernly B.
        • Karami M.
        • Engström A.E.
        • et al.
        Impella versus extracorporal life support in cardiogenic shock: a propensity score adjusted analysis.
        ESC Heart Fail. 2021; 8: 953-961
        • Park T.K.
        • Yang J.H.
        • Choi S.H.
        • et al.
        Clinical impact of intra-aortic balloon pump during extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
        BMC Anesthesiol. 2014; 14: 27
        • Aso S.
        • Matsui H.
        • Fushimi K.
        • Yasunaga H.
        The effect of intraaortic balloon pumping under venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality of cardiogenic patients: an analysis using a nationwide inpatient database.
        Crit Care Med. 2016; 44: 1974-1979
        • Lin L.Y.
        • Liao C.W.
        • Wang C.H.
        • et al.
        Effects of additional intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation therapy to cardiogenic shock patients supported by extra-corporeal membranous oxygenation.
        Sci Rep. 2016; 623838
        • Muller G.
        • Flecher E.
        • Lebreton G.
        • et al.
        The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.
        Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42: 370-378
        • Overtchouk P.
        • Pascal J.
        • Lebreton G.
        • et al.
        Outcome after revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock on extracorporeal life support.
        EuroIntervention. 2018; 13: e2160-e2168
        • Choi K.H.
        • Yang J.H.
        • Park T.K.
        • et al.
        Risk prediction model of in-hospital mortality in patients with myocardial infarction treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
        Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2019; 72: 724-731
        • Semaan C.
        • Charbonnier A.
        • Pasco J.
        • et al.
        Risk scores in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with refractory cardiogenic shock and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
        J Clin Med. 2021; 10: 956
        • Schrage B.
        • Becher P.M.
        • Bernhardt A.
        • et al.
        Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an international, multicentre cohort study.
        Circulation. 2020; 142: 2095-2106
        • Ahmad Y.
        • Sen S.
        • Shun-Shin M.J.
        • et al.
        Intra-aortic balloon pump therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 931-939
        • de Jong M.M.
        • Lorusso R.
        • Al Awami F.
        • et al.
        Vascular complications following intra-aortic balloon pump implantation: an updated review.
        Perfusion. 2018; 33: 96-104
        • Cassese S.
        • de Waha A.
        • Ndrepepa G.
        • et al.
        Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock. A meta-analysis of randomised trials.
        Am Heart J. 2012; 164: 58-65.e1
        • Bahekar A.
        • Singh M.
        • Singh S.
        • et al.
        Cardiovascular outcomes using intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis.
        J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2012; 17: 44-56
        • Kapur N.K.
        • Annamalai S.
        • Reyelt L.
        • et al.
        From bedside to bench and back again: translational studies of mechanical unloading of the left ventricle to promote recovery after acute myocardial infarction.
        F1000Res. 2018; 7 (Faculty Rev-1852): F1000
        • Miyashita S.
        • Banlengchit R.
        • Marbach J.A.
        • et al.
        Left ventricular unloading before percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021;
        • Archilletti F.
        • Giuliani L.
        • Dangas G.D.
        • et al.
        Timing of mechanical circulatory support during primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022; 99: 998-1005
        • Amin A.P.
        • Spertus J.A.
        • Curtis J.P.
        • et al.
        The evolving landscape of Impella use in the united states among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with mechanical circulatory support.
        Circulation. 2020; 141: 273-284
        • Moustafa A.
        • Khan M.S.
        • Saad M.
        • Siddiqui S.
        • Eltahawy E.
        Impella support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis.
        Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022; 34: 25-31
        • Romeo F.
        • Acconcia M.C.
        • Sergi D.
        • et al.
        Percutaneous assist devices in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: review, meta-analysis.
        World J Cardiol. 2016; 8: 98-111
        • Thiele H.
        • Jobs A.
        • Ouweneel D.M.
        • et al.
        Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials.
        Eur Heart J. 2017; 38: 3523-3531
        • Burkhoff D.
        • Cohen H.
        • Brunckhorst C.
        • et al.
        A randomised multicentre clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock.
        Am Heart J. 2006; 152: 469.e1-469.e8
        • Thiele H.
        • Freund A.
        • Gimenez M.R.
        • et al.
        • ECLS-SHOCK Investigators
        Extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock—design and rationale of the ECLS-SHOCK trial.
        Am Heart J. 2021; 234: 1-11
        • Ouweneel D.M.
        • Schotborgh J.V.
        • Limpens J.
        • et al.
        Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42: 1922-1934
        • Rao P.
        • Khalpey Z.
        • Smith R.
        • Burkhoff D.
        • Kociol R.D.
        Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest.
        Circ Heart Fail. 2018; 11e004905
        • Donker D.W.
        • Brodie D.
        • Henriques J.P.S.
        • Broomé M.
        Left ventricular unloading during veno-arterial ECMO: a review of percutaneous and surgical unloading interventions.
        Perfusion. 2019; 34: 98-105
        • Singh G.
        • Hudson D.
        • Shaw A.
        Medical optimisation and liberation of adult patients from VA-ECMO.
        Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36: 280-290
        • Guihaire J.
        • Haddad F.
        • Hoppenfeld M.
        • et al.
        Physiology of the assisted circulation in cardiogenic shock: a state-of-the-art perspective.
        Can J Cardiol. 2020; 36: 170-183
        • Vallabhajosyula S.
        • O'Horo J.C.
        • Antharam P.
        • et al.
        Concomitant intra-aortic balloon pump use in cardiogenic shock requiring veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11e006930
        • Patel S.M.
        • Lipinski J.
        • Al-Kindi S.G.
        • et al.
        Simultaneous venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous left ventricular decompression therapy with Impella is associated with improved outcomes in refractory cardiogenic shock.
        ASAIO J. 2019; 65: 21-28
        • Russo J.J.
        • Aleksova N.
        • Pitcher I.
        • et al.
        Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with cardiogenic shock.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73: 654-662
        • Al-Fares A.A.
        • Randhawa V.K.
        • Englesakis M.
        • et al.
        Optimal strategy and timing of left ventricular venting during veno-arterial extracorporeal life support for adults in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Circ Heart Fail. 2019; 12e006486
        • Subramaniam A.V.
        • Barsness G.W.
        • Vallabhajosyula S.
        • Vallabhajosyula S.
        Complications of temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: an appraisal of contemporary literature.
        Cardiol Ther. 2019; 8: 211-228