Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Feb 3;8(Suppl 1):75-85.
doi: 10.4137/CMC.S15718. eCollection 2014.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support: a review of the options, indications, and outcomes

Nisha A Gilotra  1 , Gerin R Stevens  2
Affiliations
Review

Temporary mechanical circulatory support: a review of the options, indications, and outcomes

Nisha A Gilotra et al. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. .

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock remains a challenging disease entity and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) can be implemented in an acute setting to stabilize acutely ill patients with cardiomyopathy in a variety of clinical situations. Currently, several options exist for temporary MCS. We review the indications, contraindications, clinical applications, and evidences for a variety of temporary circulatory support options, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), CentriMag blood pump, and percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), specifically the TandemHeart and Impella.

Keywords: cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support; percutaneous ventricular assist device.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A schematic representation of peripheral VA (VA ECMO) and VV-ECMO. From Cove ME, MacLaren G. Clinical review: MCS for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Crit Care. 2010;14:235; originally published by BioMed Central with permission from MAQUET GmbH & Co. KG.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) A CentriMag blood pump and (B) a schematic diagram of possible CentriMag cannulation sites: LA and Ao for LV support versus RA and PA for RV support. Image courtesy of Thoratec Corporation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
An illustration of options for MCS: (A) IABP, (B) TandemHeart, and (C) Impella. From Desai NR, Bhatt DL. Evaluating percutaneous support for cardiogenic shock: data shock and sticker shock. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:2073–2075, by permission from Oxford University Press and European Society of Cardiology.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart disease and stroke statistics–2014 update: a report from the American heart association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28–292. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147–239. - PubMed
    1. Kantrowitz A, Tjonneland S, Freed PS, Phillips SJ, Butner AN, Sherman JL., Jr Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 1968;203(2):113–8. - PubMed
    1. Lauten A, Engstrom AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(1):23–30. - PubMed
    1. O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012;126(14):1717–27. - PubMed