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

Background Cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) era, randomized trials have not shown a survival benefit with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy. This differs to observational data which show a detrimental effect, potentially reflecting bias and confounding. Without robust and valid risk adjustment, findings from non-randomized studies may remain biased. Methods We compared long-term mortality following IABP therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing PPCI during 2008–2013 from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry. We addressed measured and unmeasured confounding using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Results A total of 12,105 patients with STEMI were treated with PPCI during the study period. Of these, 700 patients (5.8%) had cardiogenic shock. Of the patients with cardiogenic shock, 255 patients (36%) received IABP therapy. Multivariable analyses identified IABP therapy to be associated with increased mortality up to 3 years (HR = 1.67, 95% CI:1.20–2.67, p<0.001). This association was lost in propensity-matched analyses (HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.84–1.80, p = 0.288). When addressing measured and unmeasured confounders, instrumental variable analyses demonstrated that IABP therapy was not associated with mortality at 3 years (Δ = 16.7%, 95% CI: -12.7%, 46.1%, p = 0.281). Subgroup analyses demonstrated IABP was associated with increased mortality in non-diabetics; patients not undergoing multivessel intervention; patients without renal disease and patients not having received prior thrombolysis. Conclusions In this observational analysis of patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock, when adjusting for confounding, IABP therapy had a neutral effect with no association with long-term mortality. These findings differ to previously reported observational studies, but are in keeping with randomized trial data.

[1]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial , 2013, The Lancet.

[2]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Differences in the Profile, Treatment, and Prognosis of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock by Myocardial Infarction Classification: A Report From NCDR , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[3]  S. D. de Boer,et al.  Impact of intra-aortic balloon pump support initiated before versus after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[4]  R. Stables,et al.  Long-Term Mortality Data From the Balloon Pump–Assisted Coronary Intervention Study (BCIS-1): A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Elective Balloon Counterpulsation During High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2012, Circulation.

[5]  J. Brachmann,et al.  Intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results of the ALKK-PCI registry , 2013, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[6]  N. Parakh Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock , 2012 .

[7]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Efficacy and timing of intra-aortic counterpulsation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock , 2012, Netherlands Heart Journal.

[9]  J. Rassen,et al.  Applying propensity scores estimated in a full cohort to adjust for confounding in subgroup analyses , 2012, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[10]  M. Valgimigli,et al.  Transradial versus transfemoral intervention for acute myocardial infarction: a propensity score-adjusted and -matched analysis from the REAL (REgistro regionale AngiopLastiche dell'Emilia-Romagna) multicenter registry. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[11]  P. Chan,et al.  Survival Benefit With Drug-Eluting Stents in Observational Studies: Fact or Artifact? , 2011, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[12]  M. Hochadel,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. , 2011, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[13]  G. Richardt,et al.  Comparison of hospital mortality with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation insertion before versus after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 2010, The American journal of cardiology.

[14]  S. Werns A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? , 2010 .

[15]  Sebastian Schneeweiss,et al.  The International Journal of Biostatistics Preference-Based Instrumental Variable Methods for the Estimation of Treatment Effects : Assessing Validity and Interpreting Results , 2011 .

[16]  J. Tijssen,et al.  In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, admission glucose level is a strong independent predictor for 1-year mortality in patients without a prior diagnosis of diabetes. , 2007, American heart journal.

[17]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Prognostic value of admission hemoglobin levels in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. , 2007, The American journal of cardiology.

[18]  Peter C Austin,et al.  A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Elliott S Fisher,et al.  Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. , 2007, JAMA.

[20]  L. Sleeper,et al.  Outcome of patients aged >or=75 years in the SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) trial: do elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock respond differently to emergent revascularization? , 2005, American heart journal.

[21]  M. Gottwik,et al.  Predictors of in-hospital mortality in 1333 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); Results of the primary PCI registry of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte (ALKK). , 2004, European heart journal.

[22]  J. Gore,et al.  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. , 2001, American heart journal.

[23]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  J. Gurwitz,et al.  Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  D. Faxon,et al.  Coronary angioplasty in diabetic patients. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Registry. , 1996, Circulation.

[26]  B J McNeil,et al.  Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. , 1994, JAMA.

[27]  D. Leaman,et al.  Diffuse Coronary Artery Disease in Diabetic Patients: Fact or Fiction? , 1978, Circulation.

[28]  E. Eckhardt Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in cardiogenic shock. , 1977, Heart & lung : the journal of critical care.

[29]  M. Rubenfire,et al.  Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in cardiogenic shock. Report of a co-operative clinical trial. , 1973, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  A Kantrowitz,et al.  Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock. , 1968, JAMA.