Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia
Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Submission | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
Users online: 3178 Small font size Default font size Increase font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page


    Advanced search

    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded109    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Table of Contents
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 277-278
Invited Commentary

Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Relief, Fortis Hospitals, Bangalore, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication1-Oct-2012

How to cite this article:
Chakravarthy M. Invited Commentary. Ann Card Anaesth 2012;15:277-8

How to cite this URL:
Chakravarthy M. Invited Commentary. Ann Card Anaesth [serial online] 2012 [cited 2023 Feb 3];15:277-8. Available from:

The survey by Bignami et al.[1] focusing on the Italian perspective of use, discontinuation, and complications related to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is timely. The authors confirm the expected results. IABP is one of the most versatile mechanical supports in the armamentarium of the cardiac anesthesiologists. There are differences in the way the IABP is inserted-with a sheath or sheath less; the way the IABP is removed-earlier to cessation of mechanical ventilation or after weaning from mechanical ventilation, or earlier to discontinuation of inotropes or afterward. Clinicians across the globe use various permutation and combination of these variables. In our experience, the final outcome of the patients is unrelated to the technique of weaning of IABP support and we believe it does not differ among various other centers. The outcome of the survey is expected to be similar, had it been performed anywhere else. In nutshell, the IABP use is not "standardized" [2] and the techniques of IABP circulatory support gives the users a degree of leeway.

IABP is inserted to thwart rapidly deteriorating left ventricular failure or on-going myocardial ischemia. What matters during these times when the heart is struggling is quick insertion of the IABP catheter whether percutaneous or via a sheath. The "holy grail" in these moments of imbalanced and unfavorable myocardial oxygen supply and demand is quick improvement in oxygen supply and reversal of excessive myocardial oxygen demand. The most important parameter at this moment is time and every second saved is extra second of better perfusion of the myocardium and therefore salvage of the ischemic myocardium. This manoeuvre also enhances tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. Similarly, the method of weaning-whether reduction of balloon volume or frequency or inotropic agents or one or more of them may not affect weaning as long as the clinicians monitoring the patient quickly recognizes the onset of low-output syndrome and reverses the process of weaning by re-establishing "full augmentation." [3] In our experience, reducing one support at a time has been the golden rule in these situations. The discussion whether the patient should be rendered susceptible to the harmful effects of extubation is a moot one. At the same time, it is neither plausible to keep the counter-pulsation indefinitely nor to keep the inotropic medications or mechanical ventilation for long periods of time. The incidence of removal of IABP support on the first day in this publication [1] suggests that it was inserted in well-indicated patients at an appropriate time. The disrepute that IABP gained in the early days may have been due to wrongly indicated patient and inappropriate time.

The decreasing rates of complications associated with the use of IABP counter-pulsation in the Italian survey is a reflection of the global scenario. Bignami and colleagues could have evaluated the incidence of IABP insertions via the sheath, because it has been pointed out that the vascular complications would be higher in insertions via the sheath. [4],[5] Apparently, the vagaries of the physicians should less influence the use of IABP insertions and a global survey would be welcome to decide the optimal course. An outcome-related survey would offer more information and help the clinician decide whether a technique is better than the other.

   References Top

1.Bignami. E, Tritapepe. L, Pasin. L, Meroni. R, Corno. L, Testa. V, Landoni. G, Guarracino. F, Zangrillo. A. A survey on the use of intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiac surgery. Ann Card Anaesth 2012;15:274-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
2.Manohar VA, Levin RN, Karadolian SS, Usmani A, Timmis RM, Dery ME, et al. The impact of intra-aortic balloon pump weaning protocols on in-hospital clinical outcomes. J Interv Cardiol 2012;25:140-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
3.Meco M, Gramegna G, Yassini A, Bellisario A, Mazzaro E, Babbini M, et al. Mortality and morbidity from intra-aortic balloon pumps. Risk analysis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2002;43:17-23.  Back to cited text no. 3
4.Severi L, Vaccaro P, Covotta M, Landoni G, Lembo R, Menichetti A. Severe Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Complications: A Single-Center 12-Year Experience. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012;26:604-7  Back to cited text no. 4
5.Kocogullari CU, Emmiler M, Ayva E, Cekirdekct A. IABP-Related vascular complications: who is responsible-the patient, the surgeon or the sheath? Part I: sheath-related complications. Adv Ther 2008;25:225-30.  Back to cited text no. 5

Correspondence Address:
Murali Chakravarthy
Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Relief, Fortis Hospitals, Bangalore
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions