Mathew Jose Chakaramakkil1, Cumaraswamy Sivathasan2. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Level 12, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore. mathew.jose.c@singhealth.com.sg. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Level 12, National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169609, Singapore.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Trials done previously have shown that IABP does not improve survival in cardiogenic shock compared to medical treatment, and that neither Impella 2.5 nor TandemHeart improves survival compared to IABP. The "IMPRESS in severe shock" trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing ECMO with IABP showed 33% improved 30-day survival with ECMO (risk difference 33%; 95% CI 14-52%; p = 0.0008; NNT 3). ECMO is indicated in medically refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO can be considered in cardiogenic shock patients with estimated mortality of more than 50%. ECMO is probably the MCS of choice in cardiogenic shock with; biventricular failure, respiratory failure, life-threatening arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to discuss the role of ECMO in the treatment of cardiogenic shock in heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Trials done previously have shown that IABP does not improve survival in cardiogenic shock compared to medical treatment, and that neither Impella 2.5 nor TandemHeart improves survival compared to IABP. The "IMPRESS in severe shock" trial compared Impella CP with IABP and found no difference in survival. A meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing ECMO with IABP showed 33% improved 30-day survival with ECMO (risk difference 33%; 95% CI 14-52%; p = 0.0008; NNT 3). ECMO is indicated in medically refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO can be considered in cardiogenic shockpatients with estimated mortality of more than 50%. ECMO is probably the MCS of choice in cardiogenic shock with; biventricular failure, respiratory failure, life-threatening arrhythmias and cardiac arrest.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiogenic shock; ECMO; Mechanical circulatory support
Authors: Veli-Pekka Harjola; Johan Lassus; Alessandro Sionis; Lars Køber; Tuukka Tarvasmäki; Jindrich Spinar; John Parissis; Marek Banaszewski; Jose Silva-Cardoso; Valentina Carubelli; Salvatore Di Somma; Heli Tolppanen; Uwe Zeymer; Holger Thiele; Markku S Nieminen; Alexandre Mebazaa Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Hiroo Takayama; Elissa Landes; Lauren Truby; Kevin Fujita; Ajay J Kirtane; Linda Mongero; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Paolo C Colombo; Ulrich P Jorde; Paul A Kurlansky; Koji Takeda; Yoshifumi Naka Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: V Kasirajan; N G Smedira; J F McCarthy; F Casselman; N Boparai; P M McCarthy Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Jin M Cheng; Corstiaan A den Uil; Sanne E Hoeks; Martin van der Ent; Lucia S D Jewbali; Ron T van Domburg; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-07-18 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Cécile Aubron; Joris DePuydt; François Belon; Michael Bailey; Matthieu Schmidt; Jayne Sheldrake; Deirdre Murphy; Carlos Scheinkestel; D Jamie Cooper; Gilles Capellier; Vincent Pellegrino; David Pilcher; Zoe McQuilten Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: C Sciaccaluga; G E Mandoli; N Ghionzoli; F Anselmi; C Sorini Dini; F Righini; F Cesareo; F D'Ascenzi; M Focardi; S Valente; M Cameli Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.654