A Comparison of IABP and LVAD

Created on Sat, 07/11/2015 - 20:03
Last updated on Mon, 05/14/2018 - 18:54

These issue came up in Question 13 from the first paper of 2007: "Compare and  contrast the advantages and  limitations  of the intra-aortic balloon  pump  (IABP)  and  ventricular assist  devices (VAD)."

The tabulated college answer to the question is presented below, as it represents the bare minimum expected of the CICM Fellow without any specific cardiothoracic leanings.

LV Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

IABP

VAD

Can be inserted percutaneously  in ICU  or CCU

While percutaneous insertion is possible, frequently require
anaesthesia and  a surgeon for insertion and removal.

Indications

Used post cardiac surgery /
cardiogenic                  shock following an infarct

Frequently  used   in   post
cardiac surgical patients.
Used   as     a     bridge     to transplantation.

Logistics

Intensivists  more  familiar
with  IABP

Can   be  used during transport

Less familiar  with  VAD,
greater degree  of complexity, more  difficult to use during transport

Anticoagulation

Usually     no       need      for anticoagulation

Need for anticoagulation

Not effective in the setting of      CI       <      1.2       and
tachyarrhythmias

Greater control on  overall
cardiac output  as  well  as
Rt    and     Lt     ventricular output

Complications

Lower       limb       ischemia,
hematoma,   aortic   trauma are complications

Bleeding,             infection,
hemolysis, device failure

A slightly expanded answer, with more detail, is also offered:

LV Assist Device vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation

IABP

VAD

Indications

No choice but pump

  • Failure to come off bypass
  • Severe aortic stenosis
  • Mitral regurgitation
  • Ventricular septal defect 

Probably harmless, but probably not useful

  • High-risk PCI patients (pre-op) - IABP-SHOCK II
  • High-risk pre-CABG patients (low LVEF)
  • Cardiogenic shock while waiting for PCI (i.e. bridge to definitive intervention)
  • Pulmonary oedema in spite of maximal medical management

Totally experimental

  • Takotsubo cardiomyopathy
  • Neurogenic stress cardiomyopathy of subarachnoid haemorrhage

Known to be pointl

Firm indications:

  • Failure to come off bypass
  • Cardiogenic shock
  • Cardiac arrest
  • Fulminant myocarditis

Potential indications:

  • High risk CABG patients (pre-op)
  • High-risk PCI patients (pre-op)

Contraindications

Absolute contraindications

  • Aortic regurgitation
  • Aortic aneurysm
  • Aortic dissection
  • Severe sepsis
  • Uncontrolled coagulopathy

Relative contraindications

  • Atherosclerosis and arterial tortuosity
  • Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction
  • Contraindications to anticoagulation
  • Aortic regurgitation
  • Aortic aneurysm
  • Aortic dissection
  • Severe sepsis
  • Uncontrolled coagulopathy
  • Left heart thrombus

Advantages

  • Bedside insertion
  • Familiarity among ICU staff
  • Less invasive
  • Flow is pulsatile; organ perfusion benefits
  • Able to compensate for all cardiac function (i.e. useful in the setting of asystole)
  • May remain in situ for longer than the IABP
  • Contrary to the college answer above ("more difficult to use during transport") most patients with VADs can be mobilised normally (Mohiyaddin, 2018)

Disadvantages

  • Useless if the cardiac index is less than 1.5
  • Insertion may be frustrated by poor peripheral arterial anatomy
  • Non-pulsatile flow; poor organ perfusion
  • Requires sternotomy for insertion (for most except the TandemHeart device, which can be inserted percutaneously)
  • Unfamiliarity among ICU staff

Anticoagulation

May not require anticoagulation

Requires mandatory anticoagulation

Complications

  • Common complications
    • Mild limb ischaemia - 2.9%
    • Balloon leak - 1.0%
    • Major limb ischaemia - 0.9%
    • Haemorrhage - 0.8%
    • Leg amputation due to ischaemia - 0.1%
  • Rare complications
    • Atheromatous cholesterol emboli
    • Aortic or arterial dissection
    • Cerebrovascular accident
    • Thrombocytopenia
    • Haemolysis
    • Helium embolism
  • Infection is the major cause of morbidity; something like 50% of the implanted devices get infected.
  • The LV gets (understandably) irritated by the presence of an LVAD, and in 25% of patients ventricular arrhythmias develop
  • Thrombi form on the walls of the device in spite of anticoagulation, and 10-16% of people have thrombotic complications.
  • Some degree of haemolysis and thrombocytopenia occur in everybody

Even more broadly, the chapter on mechanical haemodynamic support strategies contains a comparison of several other mechanical methods of increasing cardiac output.

 

References

To the tabulated answer presented here, I would add a reference or two to aid those (like me) who have never even seen a VAD.

UpToDate has a nice chapter on VADs.

My own barebones summary of the VAD is available here. IABP receives a slightly more elaborate treatment here.

EMCrit brandishes the expertise of somebody who works with these things, and I take that seriously.

Additionally, there is an insanely colourful brochure which has device-specific recommendations.

Mohiyaddin, Syed, et al. "PROLONGED USE OF LEVITRONIX RIGHT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE (RVAD) IN PATIENTS WITH LONG TERM LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE (LVAD)." Journal of the American College of Cardiology 71.11 (2018): A811.