Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Feb 14;10(4):759.
doi: 10.3390/jcm10040759.

IMPELLA® or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

Guillaume Schurtz  1   2 , Natacha Rousse  3 , Ouriel Saura  1 , Vincent Balmette  1 , Flavien Vincent  2 , Nicolas Lamblin  1   4 , Sina Porouchani  2 , Basile Verdier  1 , Etienne Puymirat  5 , Emmanuel Robin  3 , Eric Van Belle  2 , André Vincentelli  3 , Nadia Aissaoui  6 , Cédric Delhaye  2 , Clément Delmas  7 , Alessandro Cosenza  2 , Laurent Bonello  8   9 , Francis Juthier  3 , Mouhamed Djahoum Moussa  3 , Gilles Lemesle  1   4
Affiliations

IMPELLA® or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock

Guillaume Schurtz et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are effective tools in managing refractory cardiogenic shock (CS). Data comparing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and IMPELLA® are however scarce. We aimed to assess outcomes of patients implanted with these two devices and eligible to both systems. From 2004 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 128 patients who underwent VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® in our institution for refractory left ventricle (LV) dominant CS. All patients were eligible to both systems: 97 patients were first implanted with VA-ECMO and 31 with IMPELLA®. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause death. VA-ECMO patients were younger (52 vs. 59.4, p = 0.006) and had a higher lactate level at baseline than those in the IMPELLA® group (6.84 vs. 3.03 mmol/L, p < 0.001). Duration of MCS was similar between groups (9.4 days vs. 6 days in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups respectively, p = 0.077). In unadjusted analysis, no significant difference was observed between groups in 30-day mortality: 43.3% vs. 58.1% in the VA-ECMO and IMPELLA® groups, respectively (p = 0.152). After adjustment, VA-ECMO was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (HR = 0.25, p = 0.004). A higher rate of MCS escalation was observed in the IMPELLA® group: 32.3% vs. 10.3% (p = 0.003). In patients eligible to either VA-ECMO or IMPELLA® for LV dominant refractory CS, VA-ECMO was associated with improved survival rate and a lower need for escalation.

Keywords: IMPELLA®; cardiogenic shock; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; mechanical circulatory support.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have disclosed that they do not have any conflicts of interest in direct connection with this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of the study. MCS = mechanical circulatory support; VA-ECMO = veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; LV = left ventricle.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Thirty-day survival curves for all-cause death (Kaplan–Meier curves) in both groups. Solid line: VA-ECMO first group and dotted line: IMPELLA® first group; VA-ECMO = veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. + = patient censored.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Six-month survival curves for all-cause death (Kaplan–Meier curves) in both groups. Solid line: VA-ECMO first group and dotted line: IMPELLA® first group; VA-ECMO = veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; + = patient censored.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aissaoui N., Puymirat E., Delmas C., Ortuno S., Durand E., Bataille V., Drouet E., Bonello L., Bonnefoy-Cudraz E., Lesmeles G., et al. Trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2020;22:664–672. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1750. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thiele H., Ohman E.M., De Waha-Thiele S., Zeymer U., Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: An update 2019. Eur. Hear. J. 2019;40:2671–2683. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz363. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rao P., Khalpey Z., Smith R., Burkhoff D., Kociol R.D. Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock and Cardiac Arrest. Circ. Heart Fail. 2018;11:e004905. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.118.004905. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stretch R., Sauer C.M., Yuh D.D., Bonde P. National Trends in the Utilization of Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014;64:1407–1415. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.958. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schurtz G., Laine M., Delmas C., Kerbaul F., Puymirat E., Lemesle G., Bonello L. Mechanical Support in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome: Ready for Prime Time? Curr. Vasc. Pharmacol. 2018;16:418–426. doi: 10.2174/1570161116666180116165544. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources