Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal life support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: surgical venting versus Impella device.

Patients in cardiogenic shock supported with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may experience severe complications from reduced left ventricular (LV) unloading and increased cardiac afterload. These effects are usually modified by adding a percutaneous direct Impella vent or surgical LV vent on top of VA-ECMO in selected patients. However, direct comparisons between 2 LV unloading strategies in patients with cardiogenic shock due to myocardial infarction are lacking. Therefore, we sought to investigate the impact of these 2 different approaches. We enrolled 112 patients treated with an Impella or surgical LV vent during VA-ECMO support between January 2014 and February 2020. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included rates of myocardial recovery or transition to durable mechanical circulatory support. Additionally, we assessed adverse events such as peripheral ischaemic complications requiring intervention, sepsis and ischaemic stroke. At 30 days, 38 patients in the Impella group (54%) and 26 patients in the surgical LV vent group (63%) had died (relative risk with Impella 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.47-1.30; P = 0.35). Impella group and the surgical LV vent group differed significantly with respect to the secondary end points including rates of myocardial recovery (24% and 7%, respectively; P = 0.022) and rates of durable mechanical circulatory support (17% and 42%, P = 0.012). Complication rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups. The use of Impella device as therapeutic unloading therapy during VA-ECMO did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality compared to surgical LV vent in patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction.

Radakovic D ，Zittermann A ，Knezevic A ，Razumov A ，Opacic D ，Wienrautner N ，Flottmann C ，Rojas SV ，Fox H ，Schramm R ，Morshuis M ，Rudolph V ，Gummert J ，Deutsch MA ... -  《-》

Clinical efficacy of direct or indirect left ventricular unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for primary cardiogenic shock.

Left 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. We 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. During 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. Concomitant support with IABP might help reduce morbidity and improve 180-day survival in patients receiving VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock.

Char S ，Fried J ，Melehy A ，Mehta S ，Ning Y ，Kurlansky P ，Takeda K ... -  《-》

Left Ventricular Unloading With Impella Versus IABP in Patients With VA-ECMO: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) use for circulatory support in cardiogenic shock results in increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The use of concomitant Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) have been proposed as adjunct devices for LV unloading. The authors sought to compare head-to-head efficacy and safety outcomes between the 2 LV unloading strategies. We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing the use of Impella to IABP in patients on VA-ECMO. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, stroke, limb ischemia, need for continuous renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and hemolysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval and heterogeneity statistic I2 were calculated using a random-effects model. A total of 7 observational studies with 698 patients were included. Patients on VA-ECMO unloaded with Impella vs IABP had similar risk of short-term all-cause mortality, defined as either 30-day or in-hospital mortality- 60.8% vs 64.9% (RR 0.93 [0.71 to 1.21], I2 = 71%). No significant difference was observed in transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, stroke, or limb ischemia between the 2 strategies. However, the use of VA-ECMO with Impella was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (57.2% vs 39.7%) (RR 1.66 [1.12 to 2.44], I2 = 82%) and hemolysis (31% vs 7%) (RR 4.61 [1.24 to 17.17], I2 = 66%) compared with VA-ECMO, along with IABP. In conclusion, in patients requiring VA-ECMO for circulatory support, the concomitant use of Impella or IABP had comparable short-term mortality. However, Impella use was associated with increased risk of major bleeding and hemolysis.

Gandhi KD ，Moras EC ，Niroula S ，Lopez PD ，Aggarwal D ，Bhatia K ，Balboul Y ，Daibes J ，Correa A ，Dominguez AC ，Birati EY ，Baran DA ，Serrao G ，Mahmood K ，Vallabhajosyula S ，Fox A ... -  《-》

Simultaneous Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation and Percutaneous Left Ventricular Decompression Therapy with Impella Is Associated with Improved Outcomes in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock.

Patel SM ，Lipinski J ，Al-Kindi SG ，Patel T ，Saric P ，Li J ，Nadeem F ，Ladas T ，Alaiti A ，Phillips A ，Medalion B ，Deo S ，Elgudin Y ，Costa MA ，Osman MN ，Attizzani GF ，Oliveira GH ，Sareyyupoglu B ，Bezerra HG ... -  《-》

Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: Impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO.

Karami M ，den Uil CA ，Ouweneel DM ，Scholte NT ，Engström AE ，Akin S ，Lagrand WK ，Vlaar AP ，Jewbali LS ，Henriques JP ... -  《-》