IABP versus Impella support in cardiogenic shock : "in silico" study

De Lazzari, Beatrice and Capoccia, Massimo and Badagliacca, Roberto and Bozkurt, Selim and De Lazzari, Claudio (2023) IABP versus Impella support in cardiogenic shock : "in silico" study. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease, 10 (4). 140. ISSN 2308-3425 (https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd10040140)

[thumbnail of DeLazzari-etal-JCDD-2023-IABP-versus-Impella-Support-in-Cardiogenic-Shock-In-Silico-Study]
Text. Filename: DeLazzari_etal_JCDD_2023_IABP_versus_Impella_Support_in_Cardiogenic_Shock_In_Silico_Study.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo

Download (4MB)| Preview


Cardiogenic shock (CS) is part of a clinical syndrome consisting of acute left ventricular failure causing severe hypotension leading to inadequate organ and tissue perfusion. The most commonly used devices to support patients affected by CS are Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP), Impella 2.5 pump and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. The aim of this study is the comparison between Impella and IABP using CARDIOSIM© software simulator of the cardiovascular system. The results of the simulations included baseline conditions from a virtual patient in CS followed by IABP assistance in synchronised mode with different driving and vacuum pressures. Subsequently, the same baseline conditions were supported by the Impella 2.5 with different rotational speeds. The percentage variation with respect to baseline conditions was calculated for haemodynamic and energetic variables during IABP and Impella assistance. The Impella pump driven with a rotational speed of 50,000 rpm increased the total flow by 4.36% with a reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) by ≅15% to ≅30%. A reduction in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) by ≅10% to ≅18% (≅12% to ≅33%) was observed with IABP (Impella) assistance. The simulation outcome suggests that assistance with the Impella device leads to higher reduction in LVESV, LVEDV, left ventricular external work and left atrial pressure-volume loop area compared to IABP support.