Dataset Information

Impella versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Despite an increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), there is currently no randomised data directly comparing the use of Impella and veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Methods

Electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched in November 2021. Studies directly comparing the use of Impella (CP, 2.5 or 5.0) with VA-ECMO for AMI-CS were included. Studies examining other modalities of MCS, or other causes of cardiogenic shock, were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.

Results

No randomised trials comparing VA-ECMO to Impella in patients with AMI-CS were identified. Six cohort studies (five retrospective and one prospective) were included for systematic review. All studies, including 7093 patients, were included in meta-analysis. Five studies reported in-hospital mortality, which, when pooled, was 42.4% in the Impella group versus 50.1% in the VA-ECMO group. Impella support for AMI-CS was associated with an 11% relative risk reduction in in-hospital mortality compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96, I² 0%). Of the six studies, three studies also adjusted outcome measures via propensity-score matching with reported reductions in in-hospital mortality with Impella compared to VA-ECMO (risk ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.86, I² 35%). Pooled analysis of five studies with 6- or 12-month mortality data reported a 14% risk reduction with Impella over the medium-to-long-term (risk ratio 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.97, I² 0%).

Conclusions

There is no high-level evidence comparing VA-ECMO and Impella in AMI-CS. In available observation studies, MCS with Impella was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital and medium-term mortality as compared to VA-ECMO.

SUBMITTER: Batchelor RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9317942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStudies reporting long-term outcomes of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-treated coronary artery bypass grafting patients are scarce. The objective of this study was to examine the survival outcomes and identify mortality risk factors for coronary artery bypass grafting patients who received venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.MethodsData from 121 consecutive venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-treated coronary artery bypass grafting patients at the Beijing Anzhen Hospital between January 2012 and December 2016 were analyzed. Multivariable Cox regression modeling was used to identify factors independently associated with 36-month mortality.ResultsSeventy-seven patients (64%) could be weaned from venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 56 patients (46%) survived to hospital discharge, and 41 patients (34%) survived to 36 months. Older age (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.10; p < 0.001), left main coronary artery disease (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.04-2.59; p < 0.001), and vasoactive inotropic score (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; p = 0.011) were independent risk factors associated with 36-month mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the logistic regression model, which was constructed with three pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation parameters-age ⩾ 60 years, left main coronary artery disease, and vasoactive inotropic score > 60-was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.94). Age and left main coronary artery disease significantly increased the discriminatory performance of Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment score (0.79 vs. 0.91, p = 0.025).ConclusionsOlder age, left main coronary artery disease, and vasoactive inotropic score were associated with 36-month mortality in coronary artery bypass grafting patients who received venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Project description:Background Clinical outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock remain poor with high in-hospital mortality. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been widely used for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock refractory to conservative therapy, which is likely fatal without mechanical circulatory support. However, whether additional intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) use during VA-ECMO support improves clinical outcomes remains controversial. This study sought to investigate prognostic impact of the combined VA-ECMO plus IABP treatment compared with VA-ECMO alone. Methods and Results From the nationwide Japanese administrative case-mix Diagnostic Procedure Combination (DPC), the JROAD (Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases)-DPC, we identified 3815 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and managed with VA-ECMO. Of these, 2964 patients (77.7%) were managed with IABP (VA-ECMO plus IABP), whereas 851 (22.3%) were managed without IABP (VA-ECMO alone). We compared in-hospital, 7-day, and 30-day mortality between the VA-ECMO plus IABP versus the VA-ECMO alone support. Patients managed with VA-ECMO plus IABP demonstrated significantly lower in-hospital, 7-day, and 30-day mortality than those managed with VA-ECMO alone (adjusted odds ratios [95% CI] of 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38-0.59], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.33-0.51], and 0.30 [95% CI, 0.25-0.37], respectively). The findings were consistent in the propensity matching and inverse probability of treatment-weighting models. Conclusions This large-scale, nationwide study demonstrated that the combination of VA-ECMO plus IABP support was associated with significantly lower mortality compared with VA-ECMO support alone in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention.