OBJECTIVES: Simultaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is common in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS). This study aimed to analyse the effect of concomitant ECMO and IABP therapy on the short-term outcomes of patients with PCS. METHODS: Between March 2006 and March 2017, 172 consecutive patients with central (c) or peripheral (p) veno-arterial ECMO therapy due to PCS were identified at the current institution and included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into ECMO+IABP and ECMO alone groups. Further, the impact of ECMO flow direction was analysed for the groups. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients received ECMO+IABP support and 43 patients were treated with ECMO alone. Median ECMO duration did not differ between the groups (68 [34; 95] hours ECMO+IABP vs 44 [20; 103] hours ECMO; p=0.151). However, a trend toward a higher weaning rate was evident in ECMO+IABP patients (75 [58%] ECMO+IABP vs 18 [42%] ECMO; p=0.078). Concomitant IABP support with either cECMO (73% [n=24] cECMO+IABP vs 50% [n=11] ECMO; p=0.098) or pECMO (57% [n=55] ECMO+IABP vs 33% [n=7] ECMO; p=0.056) was also associated with a trend toward a higher weaning rate off ECMO. In-hospital mortality did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: This analysis found that, independent of ECMO type, additional IABP support might increase ECMO weaning; however, it did not influence survival in PCS patients. Larger studies are necessary to further analyse the impact of this concomitant MSC therapy on clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Simultaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is common in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS). This study aimed to analyse the effect of concomitant ECMO and IABP therapy on the short-term outcomes of patients with PCS. METHODS: Between March 2006 and March 2017, 172 consecutive patients with central (c) or peripheral (p) veno-arterial ECMO therapy due to PCS were identified at the current institution and included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into ECMO+IABP and ECMO alone groups. Further, the impact of ECMO flow direction was analysed for the groups. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients received ECMO+IABP support and 43 patients were treated with ECMO alone. Median ECMO duration did not differ between the groups (68 [34; 95] hours ECMO+IABP vs 44 [20; 103] hours ECMO; p=0.151). However, a trend toward a higher weaning rate was evident in ECMO+IABP patients (75 [58%] ECMO+IABP vs 18 [42%] ECMO; p=0.078). Concomitant IABP support with either cECMO (73% [n=24] cECMO+IABP vs 50% [n=11] ECMO; p=0.098) or pECMO (57% [n=55] ECMO+IABP vs 33% [n=7] ECMO; p=0.056) was also associated with a trend toward a higher weaning rate off ECMO. In-hospital mortality did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: This analysis found that, independent of ECMO type, additional IABP support might increase ECMO weaning; however, it did not influence survival in PCS patients. Larger studies are necessary to further analyse the impact of this concomitant MSC therapy on clinical outcomes.