Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF...

9
VERSITET NAVN NAVNESEN TITEL AARHUS UNIVERSITET 1. SEPTEMBER 2011 UNI

Transcript of Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF...

Page 1: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.
Page 2: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

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

Page 3: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

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

Page 4: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

TREATMENT

• Anticoagulation

• Inotropics

• Vasopressors

• Revascularisation

?

Guidelines

European Society of CardiologyAmerican Heart Association

BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN

IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS

March 11, 2014

Page 5: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

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

Page 6: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

RESULTS

Analysed by one-way ANOVA

Renal blood flow Carotid blood flow

BACKGROUND CONCLUSIONRESULTS STUDY DESIGN

IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS

March 11, 2014

Page 7: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

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

Page 8: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

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

Page 9: Ole K. Møller-Helgestad 1 In collaboration with CB Poulsen, MD 2 EH Christiansen, MD, PhD 2 JF Lassen, MD, PhD 2 HB Ravn, MD, PhD, DMSc 1 1: Dept. of.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING

IMPELLA2.5® VS IABP SNOWMASS

March 11, 2014