Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO. Issue 2 (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Karami, Mina; den Uil, Corstiaan A; Ouweneel, Dagmar M; Scholte, Niels TB; Engström, Annemarie E; Akin, Sakir; Lagrand, Wim K; Vlaar, Alexander PJ; Jewbali, Lucia S; Henriques, José PS
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 9:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 164
• Page End: 172
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: Mechanical circulatory support -- cardiogenic shock -- acute heart failure -- extracorporeal membrane oxygenation -- Impella; 616.1205
• DOI: 10.1177/2048872619865891
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2048-8726

Abstract

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.