Mechanical circulatory support after cardiac arrest.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is increasingly used in cardiogenic shock, yet evidence for its benefit in postcardiac arrest patients remains limited and controversial. This review discusses recent randomized trials and evolving concepts in hemodynamic phenotyping and patient selection.

Recent findings: MCS devices - such as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), microaxial flow pump (mAFP), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) - distinct indications, risks, and limitations. Although mAFP demonstrated improved survival in infarct-related cardiogenic shock, no MCS device has showed positive results in cardiac arrest patients. Similarly, early VA-ECMO initiation for refractory cardiac arrest has not shown a survival benefit in unselected patients and is associated with significant complications. Mixed shock states and transient myocardial dysfunction are common after cardiac arrest as well as hypoxic brain injury, complicating decision-making and highlighting the need for individualized approaches.

Summary: MCS use after cardiac arrest should not be used routinely. In selected patients with cardiogenic shock based on advanced hemodynamic phenotyping, MCS can be considered balancing the risk of postarrest severe hypoxic brain injury. Future research should focus on improving patient selection, understanding shock phenotypes, and optimizing timing and modality of support to improve outcomes in this critically ill population.