Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With Concomitant Impella Versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock
- PMID: 31335363
- DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001039
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With Concomitant Impella Versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock
Abstract
There are contrasting data on concomitant Impella device in cardiogenic shock patients treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) (ECPELLA). This study sought to compare early mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with ECPELLA in comparison to VA ECMO alone. We reviewed the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for randomized, cohort, case-control, and case series studies evaluating adult patients requiring VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock. Five retrospective observational studies, representing 425 patients, were included. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with concomitant Impella strategy was used in 27% of the patients. Median age across studies varied between 51 and 63 years with 59-88% patients being male. Use of ECPELLA was associated with higher weaning from VA ECMO and bridging to permanent ventricular assist device or cardiac transplant in three and four studies, respectively. The studies showed moderate heterogeneity with possible publication bias. The two studies that accounted for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups reported lower 30 day mortality with ECPELLA versus VA ECMO. The remaining three studies did not adjust for potential confounding and were at high risk for selection bias. In conclusion, ECPELLA is being increasingly used as a strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock. Additional large, high-quality studies are needed to evaluate clinical outcomes with ECPELLA.
Comment in
-
The Power of Combining the Machines.ASAIO J. 2020 May;66(5):504-506. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001171. ASAIO J. 2020. PMID: 32341269 No abstract available.
References
-
- van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al.; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Mission: Lifeline: Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017.136: e232–e268.
-
- Vallabhajosyula S, Dunlay SM, Prasad A, et al. Acute noncardiac organ failure in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019.73: 1781–1791.
-
- Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, et al.; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI); Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA); Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS); American Heart Association (AHA), and American College of Cardiology (ACC): 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d’intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015.65: e7–e26.
-
- Vallabhajosyula S, Arora S, Lahewala S, et al. Temporary mechanical circulatory support for refractory cardiogenic shock before left ventricular assist device surgery. J Am Heart Assoc 2018.7: e010193.
-
- Vallabhajosyula S, Arora S, Sakhuja A, et al. Trends, predictors, and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support for postcardiac surgery cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol 2019.123: 489–497.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources