Effects of intra-aortic balloon pump versus centrifugal pump on myocardial energetics and systemic circulation in a porcine model of rapidly worsening acute heart failure.

Abstract

The present experimental study compared the effectiveness of counterpulsation provided by the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) versus that of a nonpulsatile, radial-flow centrifugal pump (CFP) in rapidly worsening acute heart failure (HF). Eighteen pigs were included in the study. After the induction of acute moderate HF, circulatory support was randomly provided with either the IABP or CFP. No significant change in cardiac output (CO) and mean aortic pressure (MAP) was observed with either pump. The IABP caused a significantly greater decrease than the CFP in 1) double product (13.138 +/- 2.476 mm Hg/min vs. 14.217 +/- 2.673 mm Hg/min, p = 0.023), 2) left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP, 100 +/- 8 mm Hg vs. 106 +/- 10 mm Hg, p = 0.046), and 3) end-diastolic aortic pressure (EDAP, 70 +/- 6 mm Hg vs. 86 +/- 6 mm Hg, p = 0.000). The effects of both pumps on total tension time index and LAD flow were similar. After the induction of severe HF, the IABP had its main effects on afterload and decreased LVSP from 88 +/- 6 mm Hg to 78 +/- 9 mm Hg, (p = 0.008), and EDAP from 57 +/- 9 mm Hg to 49 +/- 14 mm Hg, (p = 0.044), whereas the CFP exerted its effects mainly on preload, lowering LV end-diastolic pressure from 19 +/- 5 mm Hg to 11 +/- 4 mm Hg, (p = 0.002). CO and MAP were similarly increased by both assist systems. The IABP (by lowering afterload) and CFP (by lowering preload) both offered significant mechanical support in acute HF. However, afterload reduction offered principally by the IABP seems preferable for the recovery of the acutely failing heart.