Why the study?
Cardiogenic shock remains a complex clinical syndrome with high morbidity and mortality, prompting a review of landmark trials and recent literature on percutaneous mechanical circulatory support following acute myocardial infarction.
This review highlights the declining role of intraaortic balloon pumps alone and the promising potential of combining extracorporeal circulatory support with ventricular unloading devices in cardiogenic shock post-myocardial infarction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May warrant reduced IABP reliance in post-MI shock; leaves open optimal MCS device selection.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock remains a complex clinical syndrome with high morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this article is to review important landmark trials as well as the relevant recent literature for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support following acute myocardial infarction. RECENT FINDINGS: The sole use of intraaortic balloon pumps for cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction continues to be questioned with downgrading of its recommendation in recent years, there however may remain a role in patients with mechanical complications of their myocardial infarction. The combined use of extracorporeal circulatory support and a ventricular unloading device appears to be promising with increasing data supporting this strategy. SUMMARY: Given the complex and heterogeneous nature of cardiogenic shock there remains somewhat limited robust data to guide clinical practice. Ongoing research is needed to help guide improvements in patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frost et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: