Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Schurtz G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7918655 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Schurtz Guillaume G Rousse Natacha N Saura Ouriel O Balmette Vincent V Vincent Flavien F Lamblin Nicolas N Porouchani Sina S Verdier Basile B Puymirat Etienne E Robin Emmanuel E Van Belle Eric E Vincentelli André A Aissaoui Nadia N Delhaye Cédric C Delmas Clément C Cosenza Alessandro A Bonello Laurent L Juthier Francis F Moussa Mouhamed Djahoum MD Lemesle Gilles G

Journal of clinical medicine 20210214 4

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) dominan ...[more]

PMID: 33672792

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveLeft ventricular (LV) distention is a feared complication in patients receiving venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). LV unloading can be achieved indirectly with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or directly with an Impella device (Abiomed, Danvers, Mass). We sought to assess the clinical and hemodynamic effects of IABP and Impella devices on patients supported with VA ECMO.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of VA ECMO patients at our institution from January 2015 to June 2020. Patients were categorized as either ECMO alone or ECMO with LV unloading. LV unloading was characterized as either ECMO with IABP or ECMO with Impella. We recorded baseline characteristics, survival, complications, and hemodynamic changes associated with device initiation.ResultsDuring the study, 143 patients received ECMO alone whereas 140 received ECMO with LV unloading (68 ECMO with IABP, 72 ECMO with Impella). ECMO with Impella patients had a higher incidence of bleeding events compared with ECMO alone or ECMO with IABP (52.8% vs 37.1% vs 17.7%; P < .0001). Compared with ECMO alone, ECMO with IABP patients had better survival at 180 days (log rank P = .005) whereas survival in ECMO with Impella patients was not different (log rank P = .66). In a multivariable Cox hazard analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.03; P = .015), male sex (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.80; P = .002), baseline lactate (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11; P = .004), baseline creatinine (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11; P = .032), need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.40-3.39; P = .001), and presence of pre-ECMO IABP (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.83; P = .010) were associated with reduced mortality. There was no significant difference in hemodynamic changes in the ECMO with IABP versus ECMO with Impella cohorts.ConclusionsConcomitant support with IABP might help reduce morbidity and improve 180-day survival in patients receiving VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

IMPELLA<sup>®</sup> or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Left Ventricular Dominant Refractory Cardiogenic Shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets