BACKGROUND: Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. As no randomised evidence is available, the choice between high-output Impella or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is still a matter of debate. Real-life data are necessary to assess adverse outcomes and to help guide the treatment decision between the different devices. The purpose of this study was to compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of Impella CP/5.0 with ECMO support in patients with cardiogenic shock from myocardial infarction. METHODS: A retrospective, two-centre study was performed on all cardiogenic shock from myocardial infarction patients with Impella CP/5.0 or ECMO support, from 2006 until 2018. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Potential baseline imbalance between the groups was adjusted using inverse probability treatment weighting, and survival analysis was performed with an adjusted log-rank test. Secondarily, the occurrence of device-related complications (limb ischaemia, access site-related bleeding, access site-related infection) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included (Impella, N=90; ECMO, N=38). The 30-day mortality was similar for both groups (53% vs. 49%, P=0.30), also after adjustment for potential baseline imbalance between the groups (weighted log-rank P=0.16). Patients with Impella support had significantly fewer device-related complications than patients treated with ECMO (respectively, 17% vs. 40%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with Impella CP/5.0 or ECMO for cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction did not differ in 30-day mortality. More device-related complications occurred with ECMO compared to Impella support.
BACKGROUND: Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. As no randomised evidence is available, the choice between high-output Impella or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is still a matter of debate. Real-life data are necessary to assess adverse outcomes and to help guide the treatment decision between the different devices. The purpose of this study was to compare characteristics and clinical outcomes of Impella CP/5.0 with ECMO support in patients with cardiogenic shock from myocardial infarction. METHODS: A retrospective, two-centre study was performed on all cardiogenic shock from myocardial infarction patients with Impella CP/5.0 or ECMO support, from 2006 until 2018. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Potential baseline imbalance between the groups was adjusted using inverse probability treatment weighting, and survival analysis was performed with an adjusted log-rank test. Secondarily, the occurrence of device-related complications (limb ischaemia, access site-related bleeding, access site-related infection) was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included (Impella, N=90; ECMO, N=38). The 30-day mortality was similar for both groups (53% vs. 49%, P=0.30), also after adjustment for potential baseline imbalance between the groups (weighted log-rank P=0.16). Patients with Impella support had significantly fewer device-related complications than patients treated with ECMO (respectively, 17% vs. 40%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with Impella CP/5.0 or ECMO for cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction did not differ in 30-day mortality. More device-related complications occurred with ECMO compared to Impella support.
Authors: Manal Alasnag; Alexander G Truesdell; Holli Williams; Sara C Martinez; Syeda Kashfi Qadri; John P Skendelas; William A Jakobleff; Mirvat Alasnag Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Mohamed A Omer; Jose E Exaire; Jacob C Jentzer; Yader B Sandoval; Mandeep Singh; Charles R Cagin; Islam Y Elgendy; Tahir Tak Journal: Int J Angiol Date: 2021-02-12
Authors: Vassili Panagides; Henrik Vase; Sachin P Shah; Mir B Basir; Julien Mancini; Hayaan Kamran; Supria Batra; Marc Laine; Hans Eiskjær; Steffen Christensen; Mina Karami; Franck Paganelli; Jose P S Henriques; Laurent Bonello Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Bernhard Wernly; Mina Karami; Annemarie E Engström; Stephan Windecker; Lukas Hunziker; Thomas F Lüscher; Jose P Henriques; Markus W Ferrari; Stephan Binnebößel; Maryna Masyuk; David Niederseer; Peter Abel; Georg Fuernau; Marcus Franz; Malte Kelm; Mathias C Busch; Stephan B Felix; Holger Thiele; Alexander Lauten; Christian Jung Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-02-09