ole k. møller-helgestad 1 in collaboration with cb poulsen, md 2 eh christiansen, md, phd 2 jf...
Post on 04-Jan-2016
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Ole K. Møller-Helgestad1
In collaboration with
CB Poulsen, MD 2
EH Christiansen, MD, PhD2
JF Lassen, MD, PhD2
HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc1
1: Dept. of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Aarhus University Hospital
2: Dept. of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital
IMPELLA2.5® VS. IABP IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK
SNOWMASSMarch 11, 2014
DENMARK
No
r wa
yS
we
de
n
U.K.
Fi n
l an
d
BACKGROUND
Mor
talit
y (%
) IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP
SNOWMASSMarch 11, 2014
No improvement for the last 15
years
Goldberg R J et al. Circulation. 2009;119:1211-1219
BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN
TREATMENT
• Anticoagulation
• Inotropics
• Vasopressors
• Revascularisation
?
Guidelines
European Society of CardiologyAmerican Heart Association
BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN
IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS
March 11, 2014
STUDY DESIGN
LV failure
IABP
Impella
IABP
Impella
No supportIABP+Impella
15 min 15 min 15 min 10+60 min
LAD Ischemia 45 min
13 Pigs
45 + 30 min
Reperfusion30 min.
BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN
IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS
March 11, 2014
RESULTS
Analysed by one-way ANOVA
Renal blood flow Carotid blood flow
BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN
IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS
March 11, 2014
0.31 watts
RESULTS
0.2W CP = 45% Mortality risk
Cardiac Power (CP) = (watt)
CO × MAP
451
Analysed by one-way ANOVA
BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN
IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS
March 11, 2014
CONCLUSION
In this study, the Impella2.5® was superior to the IABP when it comes to:
• Improving blood flow to the brain and kidneys
• Improving cardiac function
• Suggests impoved outcome on Impella2.5 support, but RCTs are needed
BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN
IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS
March 11, 2014
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS
March 11, 2014
top related